oagre said:
If the guy has a genuine worthy reason for earning less, the judge lets him pay less. Health, being laid off, sometimes going back to school. Child support is worked out by a chart which corresponds with the guy's income level.
But it is naive to think that guys will not quit jobs and work under the table or simply quit jobs and stay home just to spite their exes. Every day, every Family court judge in this province sees multiple examples of guys who deserve a break and also OTOH guys who are lying, malingering and otherwise deadbeating their way through the court system.
Your theory is predicated on the false assumption that no guy will quit working for no reason just to spite his ex or work for cash under the table to blow it on his 19 year old girlfriend while his kids wear hand-me-downs and his wife takes TTC.
No, it isn't a theory, it is morally "right". Insofar as it is wrong to suspect everyone from cheating their wife by purposely hiding their income. As I said "yes, some do it" but to automatically punish everyone for the acts of a few, is wrong.
No, the courts do NOT automatically reduce alimony if the ex-husband's income is reduced. There are examples of where this just isn't so. The one where the guy worked at spar is a perfect example. He's getting unemployment (and the ONLY way to get that is to get laid off) yet he's in the hole every month over $10,000.00. I seem to recall the courts are garnishing his unemployment benefits because he owes so much back alimony.....
There was a segment on the radio the other day about what a stay at home wife does, and what the equivolent paid job...pays.
For eg:
a maid, $15.00 per hour x 40 hrs a week = $31200.00 annually
Chauffer: $25.00 per hour x 40 hrs a week = $52000.00
Cook/Chef: $45.00 per hour x 40 hrs a week = $93600.00
Now the report/study they were talking about took into consideration that a housewife doesn't do all the various jobs full time, all day. The total they came up with was something like $100,000.00 per year. Therefore, that's what she deserves in alimony.
Ummm wait, since when do we all get "paid" to clean our own houses? Drive our own kids to school?
Not saying she doesn't deserve anything, but to apply that logic, without applying the same logic to what the typical husband does.
For eg:
Mowing the lawn/Landscaper: $25.00 per hour x 40 hrs a week = $52000.00
Mechanic: $35.00 per hour x 40 hrs a week = $72800.00
Carpenter: $45.00 per hour x 40 hrs a week = $93600.00
Did they take that into consideration when calculating what her alimony should be? (in other words, subtracting what he did around the house from what she did) Nope. Why on earth would they do THAT??????