Warum nach der Scheidung noch bezahlen?
Aktuell ist es ja so, dass nach einer Scheidung der geringer verdienende Partner (meist die Frau) Ehegattenunterhalt und weitere Zahlungen bekommt.
Als Argument wird in den meisten Fällen angeführt, die Frau habe sich ja um Kind und Haushalt gekümmert.
Argument Kind: Dafür gibt es Kindesunterhalt. Und der wird unabhängig davon gezahlt ob man nun verheiratet war oder nicht! Zudem ist die Entscheidung dass die Frau zu Hause bleibt oft eine bewusst getroffene Entscheidung der Frau, sie könnte ja auch den Mann zu Hause lassen und selbst arbeiten gehen
Argument Haushalt: Dann müsste die Frau ja auch nach der Scheidung noch den Haushalt machen damit das ein valider Grund ist.
Warum soll man also den geringer verdienenden Partner nach der Trennung noch “belohnen”? Ich finde das unfair und bin auf eure Meinungen und Argumente gespannt.
(2 votes)
Loading...
No… this assumption is already wrong!
In most cases, there will be no need to pay for childcare. But there are exceptions and they are too right!
First, the spouses have decided this together, and secondly the ex-wife, when the children are older, does not get eternal and three days after marriage, if at all.
Here too, your assumption is wrong! Because it is usually about the care of children under three years. What would be the same if he weren’t married to her and they had a common child. Then the whole of the support that she can claim is called. You don’t want to make the ex-wife worse than the women who aren’t married to the child’s father, do you?
Okay, here’s your unawareness when it comes to legal matters! Because there is a difference whether she now gives the housewife, the housewife AND mother gives the housewife for decades, the housewife gives without training etc.
Your flat-rate statements are FALSCH!
“After separation” is something different than “after divorce”… And in the year of separation it is not about “rewarding”, but about the possibility that the two will find a way to come together and in this time, of course, no spouse should be put worse.
And as I have already written, there is a pre-marital maintenance only in exceptional cases. Every divorce is subject to individual case consideration! So throw things into the room here to derive your opinion from it that you find it unfair, doesn’t make any sense!
You can find what you want, it’s free. Only then should you perhaps also deal intensively with the subject or at least acquire basic knowledge. Then maybe you’ll understand better…
Basically, the maintenance claim would be that (usually) it does not fall into “nothing” if you no longer have any desire. A significant loss of living standards is already a descent. It was also assumed that the less earning partner had to bring casualties beforehand (more) in order to deal with children and, if necessary, with children. Budget more to care.
Marriage was also something that should be applied to (life)duration, not like “normal” relationships, which can end easily even after many years. For this reason, some doubt whether this is still contemporary.
The claim does not exist forever. It’s the question how long you were married. She has to try to get on her own feet.
The woman doesn’t get a break for ever. If necessary, she has not worked or worked less for the children, the couple has decided together, so she also deserves much less for the divorce until she can look for something else and get herself. After all, she also has to finance her own apartment (or the former spouse).
Child support is only for children and costs much more than (legal) maintenance is paid.
Yeah, I think so, so I have a marriage contract.
If you want a marriage contract, you better not marry.
And my father paid him, all right!
The fact that the woman stays at home and the man works is a decision that the spouses have made GEMEINSAM. Accordingly, both must also bear the consequences (at least partially).
However, spouse maintenance is more the exception than the rule.
At present it is so that after a divorce the less earning partners (usually the woman) will receive spouse support and further payments.
Keep dreaming, girl.
But yes, the system is in total somewhat outdated and would have to be thought of newer.
No.
The spouse’s pension is only paid extremely rarely if one of the partners does not pursue employment for reasons (housewife/homeman). However, this is stopped to seek a job immediately.
Thank you. Do you have a source? I believe you, but I couldn’t find anything on the fast
that’s been so for years.
Returns from §1569 BGB:
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bgb/__1569.html
I usually don’t save it and my net is too bad to look for you now a source. You have to research yourself.
Thank you too!
Thanks for the link. 👍
Okay, I’ll keep looking, but thanks
Hi.
Child and household: Whoever takes care of it loses pension points. And ascent possibilities, this has a long-term effect. The gap in the CV can cause you to find no job later in the learned profession.
Compensation is just right. Either they make 50/50 everything, and at earning less responsively.
Then it is added that women earn less in certain areas if they are not paid by tariff or work in public service.
Always look at everything!
Marriage maintenance is only in exceptional cases.
so a typical answer of a man.who has looked all the time the house in place of the table covered the laundry washed and ironed the wc plaster from the next pee.who cares if you were sick—- from me would have paid at least 10% of the reward of the man to the woman during the marriage
Anyone who takes care of what is in the household will be addressed together. If the woman wants to be paid during the marriage, she must express this wish and the man can then himself. Rest he wants to survive this. That would be fair. In all other cases (i.e., if the woman tries to marry) she should, after the divorce, make the household even more unfair, otherwise.
By the way, there are also men who would like to be Hausmann. Why do most women want this, often even if there are no children, don’t they? Hmm…
She is also “paid” by offering her free food and logistics when he is a single earner. Only the whole thing you can’t compare with a relationship of work that it would be after marriage!
Within marriage, the principle applies: what is mine is also your…
This is no longer necessary for separation and divorce.
So if she would still make the budget after a divorce, then it would only be against money.
And if he wants to be a houseman – what the fewest men actually want, because it also brings financial disadvantages and is often a career killer, then he can do that!
You usually talk to each other in a marriage!
Only what does it bring to the spouses if he earns more than her and then he gives the houseman.
Wouldn’t be that all women in front of the child were already unemployed and meanless and are only looking for the provider! Only then is it fact that women are often encountered in badly paid jobs and that after the child, they fit perfectly into the stuff that he might take parental leave, but otherwise the “supplier” exists. So why should it have disadvantages after the joint decision and only the advantages?
He will, even if there is no financial in cash. But in the course of family entertainment, the spouses come up for each other. However, they are completely free in the design of marriage. Only the income is quasi-halved in legal terms.
He pays by taking over the costs incurred (undertaking) completely, while he contributes to family support with domestic work and, if necessary, child care. A pocket money would also be legal to her. But in most marriages, of course, it also works so that she doesn’t have to beg for money afterwards.