We have always known that women tend to do worse, financially speaking, after divorce and this has now been confirmed by a report, The Financial Impact of Divorce in Australia released on April 5 by AMP and the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling. The report found that divorce hurts both parties financially but that the impact is worse for women: in the first year after divorce men’s incomes dropped by 8 per cent, or $4100 a year, while women’s fell by 42 per cent, or $21,400. Women most often kept the family home but struggled to find the cash flow to meet daily expenses. The report also found that 50 per cent of divorced men found new partners, compared with 35 per cent of divorced women.
|
||||
UNEQUAL DIVORCE OUTCOMES19 comments to UNEQUAL DIVORCE OUTCOMES |
|
 
 
|
||
|
Copyright © 2012 Anne Summers Terms of Use Privacy |
||||
The report, The Financial Impact of Divorce in Australia released on April 5 by AMP and the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling is incomplete and doesn’t take into consideration the man’s expenses – child support and wife maintenance – post divorce.
To gain a glimpse of the matter from the other side you may wish to read this -
“The price of being a paypacket”,
by James Hickey
http://www.kittennews.com/cgi-bin/kn_opinion/opinion.pl?topic=999959
Besides, I’m not one to think that women are stupid when it comes to matters of money, security or status, so it begs the question, why do women initiate divorce in about 80% of cases if the report is correct?
Are women really that stupid or is the report really that wrong?
I believe the latter.
In fact this comment is wrong. The report calculates disposable household income adjusted for the number of people living in the house. For supporting parents the result is total income less tax plus child support. For the non-supporting parent the result is total income less tax less child support. The sum is divided by the number of people each household has to support.
The result of this calculation is that a year after divorce the non-supporting parent is better off by $13,200. The supporting parent is worse off by $5,100.
Nope!
In fact Melanie above is wrong.
“The report calculates disposable household income adjusted for the number of people living in the house,” she said.
However that’s the entire point – divorced men pay (through the nose) for people living in another house!
Get it?
The report’s bent.
Arithmetic is what you need to learn.
Total household income – tax – child support = disposable income of one household. Total h/hold income – tax + child support = disposable income of the other one. Thus in terms of the actual needs of each household, the one with the children in it is worse off and the one without the children is better off.
Simple solution,perhaps the children should be with the parent that can see to their needs in a more evective manner. You can’t have you cake, and eat it to. Don’t like where you are when it comes to money, to bad.
Geez, no wonder your not putting your name to that one – there is a name for that, ‘flaming’. It’s against netiquette.
I think it is funny how usually the people who have such a problem with child support and maintainance seem to be those who actually already have money.
What is really important is peace in your home, food on the table and a roof over your heads. If maintainance and access fit in with that, well and good, if not who wouldn’t forego it?
Besides, why expect man-made law to consider the rights of women in the divorce process, when they subjugate them through marriage to start with?
I think it’s funny that usually the people that cry the loudest are women that for some reason or another feel cheated, yet, they hold such ignorance that they cannot feel for the many men that have been cheated by the courts out of time with their children.
There should not be such things as child support or maintainance.
Instead there should be shared-parenting.
If you chose to sit on your ass during your marriage, why should men pay for that?
Ignorance can be found within those words and thoughts that are forming now in your mind.
You think it’s your right to collect money not your own?.
“But i gave him the best years of my life!!. He does not want me anymore, for that i’ll make him pay.”
And pay we do.
Not just in money, but with the loss of our children,in whose best intrest is it that men see their children a couple times a month?.
Perhaps you might want to think a little harder, “flaming”, you say?
Truth is a bitter pill.
All the money in the world can never make up for the loss of one’s children.
You speak of change?, what?, more money?.
For all those things you suffer, there is not a thing that will ever make up those days when your child’s laughter echos through empty halls, and when you look at the calender, you realize you have to wait another week or two before you are allowed to hear that most beautifull of sounds.
Change the divorce act?, yes, hold a hearing to find out not only who will be able to provide best for their children, but determine also, the liklyhood of which parent would use the children to their own ends.
Imagine if you will losing you children, then being told you have to pay someone to look after them, then being told you cannot see them when you or they want, but rather, when your ex decides you have suffered enough.
You speak so loudly of the plight of women, yet you forget the plight of the fatherless child.
I think the only “flamer” here is magnet. Or do i mean the only ignorant one here is magnet?. Either way, I cannot believe YOU put your name to such pathetic dribble.
http://www.kittennews.com/cgi-bin/kn_opinion/opinion.pl?topic=999923
Damn lies and statistics
James Hickey
May divorce be with you – but don’t be surprised when it sends you broke
“Till death do us part” are increasingly optimistic words for a bride and groom to utter and, in the event of a divorce, it is the bride who will suffer most financially.
Parting is such costly sorrow by Liz Gooch April 6, 2005
“The pain of parting has a big impact on the wallet: research shows divorce leaves women financially worse off than their ex-husbands.”
“While divorce also diminishes men’s finances, a new report confirms that women experience a far greater drop in income.”
What I find interesting is that women who do what is called unpaid work! Experience a fall in income?
What is going on?
So the next time someone says “housework and child care are unpaid work!” Ask them if that is so, then how is it that women then experience a fall in income following divorce?
The NATSEM report uses disposable income. The basis for their disposable income is for the person receiving child support is gross household income, minus tax, plus child support.
For the payer, disposable income is gross household, minus tax, minus child support.
NATSEM then adjusted the income for the composition of the household. Children or no children.
The two factors NATSEM neglected to cover.
Firstly, married men who have children work longer hours and have a higher income than other groups of men. Many fathers would be working overtime or second jobs in order to make ends meet.
Secondly, the NATSEM report failed to take into account the cost of contact with the non-resident parent. It incorrectly assumed that the children were a cost only to the resident parent. Research has shown that the cost of contact is a significant cost to the non-resident parent.
Hi anon,
there are a number of physical and cultural considerations that need to be addressed in this issue, besides the fact that it is usually best for kids to stay at home with a parent rather than both parent working and the children being in care.
Women grow and carry children till birth, and have a number of long term health issues as a result.
In addition to that, a good reason why women ‘sit on their asses during marriage’ as you so respectfully and equitably put it, is because they need a certain amount of time to recuperate from carrying a child.
Obviously, in many cultures it is traditionally a woman’s task to care for children, not that I have a problem with women who do not want to fill traditional roles, but that is the reason why a lot of women stay at home and take care of the kids and subsequently, don’t earn as much as men during that period.
I think there is also, in the same way, stemming from traditional cultural roles, a tendency for some women to expect that marriage will be a long-term prospect rather than having an expiry date and as such, they are ill-prepared for a marriage folding, particularly during their children’s early years when they are very dependent.
The prospect of shared parenting to alleviate problems with the provision of childcare would pose a major problem if it were implemented across the board, indiscriminately, with high rates of domestic violence causing many separations/divorces, and a lack of support and educational networks for men who would be then placed in child-carer roles and who would also have difficulty juggling family life and working hours.
The problem with shared parenting is that you would lose your control, or ‘meal ticket’, as it were. You can suger coat it all you want, but to believe the children are better off being closly tied to one parent and not the other, is once again, pathetic.
How many lives need be destroyed in order for you to see the truth?
One point i will say is that you are right about women being the “natural caregiver”, right, about 50 years ago!!, men are activly caring for their children in todays society.
The problem is control, not all women use their children, but the vast majority do, face it.
Shared parenting would remove the control. Scary, isn’t it?, and without a doubt, it’s coming.
You speak of domestic abuse?, get real, women assault men all the time, what’s worse, they assaut their children just as much.
Do not ever think that anything short of shared parenting is NOT abuse.(Just put down your mop and THINK about it.)
After reading all the comments on this topic today, I have come to the conclusion that Anonymous, you really need to see a counsellor to sort out your anger and resentment towards women before you do serious harm to yourself, or someone else!
Ha Ha!!!!!!
I’m sorry, does the truth hit a little too close to home?
Counseller? My lord, you need to see things from the other side of the fence to really understand the truth of what i say.
To bad, what is that they say?, ignorance is bliss?
Anon you idiot. Lost the wife and kids hey? I wonder why… My greatest hope for you is that you have no daughters. My own daughter receives some maintenance from her father and never sees him. I couldn’t think of a better arrangement. She has a settled, peaceful life, she’s not dragged from one home to the other to placate the whims of adults. As for the maintenance – well she gets to do her dancing and netball and maybe there’s a couple of dollars left for a lunch order every now and then. Mmmm yes so harsh on the daddy’s.
Anonymous you sound like you have a real issue with women. Most of your comments are misogynist in tone. Like the other blogger said, you really need to go see a counsellor. Why do I say this? Well your comments are irrational and down right nasty and judgemental about women.
Shhh! I hope you don’t mind but this is too much for me and I need to tell someone. I have found a website that is giving out FREE information about credit repair
The action plan we offer can arm you with the information you need to you make the right decisions while navigating through the divorce process
There was alot of dismissive comments towards annon, sure he was emotionalthrough his words, but if you look behind that there are some decent points in his argument.
I’m going through a divorce right now, there were no children involved. We were married for 18 months, I worked my butt off for our future, she wanted out of her financial planning job, which was ok with me, I supported her through her yoga training, paid for her to go to India a few times for more training, bought her a yoga studio etc. After only 18 months of marriage she left because we were on different spiritual journeys. Guess what, she walked away with half of everything I spent 15 years working and accumulating. Fair? I think not. As for women being worse off after divorce, she would be, by choice. That study is stupid, I earn 200k a year, so in theory her pre divorce income was 100k, she now lives of the divorce pay out and about 15k she makes from yoga. And my income has gone back up 200k. The study is floored.