HN user
I guess that's allowed so that a certain class of spoiled American female can live the archetypal slut's dream of fucking an alpha male while a beta male provides for her.
I think most states stop alimony when she remarries, though, which is why women who want to play that game will have live-in boyfriends but not remarry.
Nobody gets married with that understanding, and nobody wants to.
If she thinks he might be a shitty father who only contributes the minimum, then she shouldn't marry him or have kids with him.
I think $4k a month isn't overboard for 3 teenage boys, especially if you factor in school & health care.
Health coverage should really be provided by the government, but that's a separate issue. Also, individual health insurance on teenage boys is going to be cheap: closer to $150 per month than $1000/month.
School is provided by the government, for 12 years. College, on the other hand, is ridiculously expensive, but if the government isn't forcing married couples to pay for it (I know some $100-300k couples who paid nothing) it doesn't have a leg to stand on in forcing divorced parents to pay for it.
Not sexist, but you're wrong.
Child support should represent the minimum acceptable contribution of the non-custodial parent (father, in the vast majority of cases) to the child's welfare. Should he contribute a lot more, in cash, gifts, and college support? Absolutely. I would. However, the government shouldn't require him to do so, and the spending should be at his discretion. Right now, that freedom is completely taken away. The custodial parent should not be getting a huge check and the freedom to spend the money however she wants. If I end up having a kid with a wife who divorces me to live it up with an illiterate biker, those CS payments damn better be going to the kid's college, not her beau's lottery-ticket budget.
It's a bizarre inconsistency. Parents can stay married and financially neglect their children. They can make $300k combined per year and still refuse to pay for their kids' college. Yet, if they divorce, the one parent who rarely sees the kids (usually father) is forced not to pay up merely to the minimum level of decency, but far beyond that if he's "rich" like the article's author.
My blood pressure went way up when I found out how brutally he is being raped by the alimony system. He'd be better off in a technical field where skills matter more than reputation; he could change his identity.
Assets earned during the marriage are earned by the couple and should be equitably split, but child support should be no more than 1/2 the minimum cost of raising a child (of course, if the father's not a prick, he'll contribute much more; but the govt. should not require him to) and alimony should not exist.
I was having problems with AWS (very slow; too slow for development). I don't know if it was just Google.
UPDATE @ 12:10--
AWS (which also seemed to be affected) up to normal speed. Youtube and Gmail slow but usable. Google seems to be a normal speed.
Youtube is fucked right now.