Divorce Alert: Tax Bill Targets Alimony Deduction

Kiplinger via Yahoo ^ | November 7th, 2017 | Chris Chen

[spintreebob]

Divorce is destructive of society. The government should not be favoring it...for the same reason it should not be favoring other things that are legal but destructive of society.

[Buckeye McFrog]

unless we get rid of dozens of these people in the Congress. if we wiped out the Congress and used a dart board to re-fill it, we would get better legislation and it would be on a timely basis.

William F. Buckley said he'd rather be governed by 100 random names from the Manhattan telephone book.

[Mariner]

“How bad does that suck?”

The suckage in this one is strong.

[Mariner]

“The government should not be favoring it”

Then you must be supportive of eliminating Child Support too.

That enables women to divorce.

[Buckeye Battle Cry]

“If you’re paying $3,200/mo in spousal support it will put you in the 25% or 35% bracket.”

35% hands down. YAY! My taxes will go up more than $13,000!

[RegulatorCountry]

If wishes were horses and all that. A lot of things wouldn’t be the way they are.

[usconservative]

And they are ordered by a judge at the barrel of a gun. Pay or go to jail. Resist that arrest and they’ll likely shoot you.

Well, this certainly impacts me and I'll tell you upfront I'll quit my job and leave the state. Divorce judges seldom (if ever...) pursue ex spouses across state lines, especially if they have no job, work for cash, etc.. Screw the Republicans if they do this.

[Mariner]

Let’s add spiderpig to the pantheon of the screwed over by Congressional Republicans.

Now, a question for all of you: I assume you’ve voted Republican for most of your lives as you made enough money to pay spousal support (ha ha).

If this bill passes, will you vote Republican again?

[Mariner]

see my #68

[usconservative]

For many payors, saving taxes on alimony payments is the one pain relief that comes with making the payments.

Factually incorrect, not surprising coming from Yahoo. Fact is, for many payors less than half the forced at the point of a gun alimony is tax deductible.

Not only do I pay taxes on the FULL amount that I NEVER GET TO SEE in the first place, the worthless EX pay taxes on it as ordinary income too.

The fed's are double-dipping.

And then (today) I only get to deduct about 40% of the alimony from my taxes, again for money I NEVER GET TO SEE in the first place.

[Mariner]

“Divorce judges seldom (if ever...) pursue ex spouses across state lines”

Oh, they don’t have to.

The IRS will enforce it now, just like Child Support.

[usconservative]

I will tell you point blank if this passes as-is not only will I never vote for a Republican ever again (and I've NEVER voted for a Democrat) I'll drop out of the workforce and become a burden to the government. They'll be paying me to sit on my arse at home and watch TV every day.

F'em.

[usconservative]

Not if I don’t work and there’s noting to enforce.

[Mariner]

“for many payors less than half the forced at the point of a gun alimony is tax deductible”

If it’s alimony, it’s deductible.

[usconservative]

What enables women to divorce are no-fault divorce laws and liberal judges who award them “lifetime support” of thousands of dollars a month because they refused to get off their fat, lazy, no good asses and work, period.

[usconservative]

No, it’s not all deductible. It’s not dollar for dollar.

[Mercat]

Ok. They didn’t 20 years ago

[zeugma]

The tax-man gets a comparable bite either way, so it should make little difference to the Feds.

Actually not. In many, if not most cases, the taxing it on the man's income will generate more revenue to the Feral government because it will be at a higher rate. I suspect this is just a sneaky way to slide in an effective tax increase.

Alimony and similar payments should be taxed at the recipient as income because they are the ones benefiting from it.

[zeugma]

Yes, but then the males bang out a bunch of kids with a woman whom then then divorce and usually leave her alone to raise them. Guys, time to put your dicks down if you don’t want the responsibility for the children their “use” brings. If there are no offspring, then there should not be any long-term spousal support.

alimony and child support are two completely different things.

[TwelveOfTwenty]

Agreed, this is a huge further shaft, generally to the male, in the divorce system which is already hugely skewed against the male.

So when are men going to unite and do something about it, rather than by their silence and inaction consent to themselves and their sons being subject to that system?