The Issue: Whether states should limit the time a divorced spouse can receive alimony payments.
***
This is one of the worst arguments for permanent alimony that I have ever read (“Ending Alimony Is Not So Smart,” Naomi Schaefer Riley, PostOpinion, June 5).
As a divorcee who is now remarried to a man who pays permanent alimony through the Florida courts, I have seen the abuse of alimony.
Not only did I never ask for alimony, but I now work as hard as ever, as does my husband, to support a woman who refuses to work. Just because two people fall out of love does not mean one should be punished for being a breadwinner. We will have to pay until death do us all part.
Permanent alimony is archaic. If a woman stayed at home to raise children, then help her get back into the workforce. More than that is a prison sentence for the paying spouse. Even murderers get out of jail.
Laura Black
Summerfield, NC
Riley seems to forget about child support, which is also paid by the spouse paying alimony. Child support ends when the child is emancipated. If that doesn’t last forever, why should alimony?
There are reasonable formulas that have been enacted by other states to make paying alimony fair and not a permanent source of income to the receiving spouse.
If a marriage lasted 20 years, then alimony should not be paid any longer than 20 years.
Gregory Tarantino
Clifton, NJ
All of the alimony-reform movements, including New Jersey’s, have stated clearly that alimony has a place for those who need it. Long-term marriages should result in long-term alimony. Permanent alimony must end. Everyone has the right to retire.
Alimony must have legally defined guidelines. Judges should not have unlimited discretion as to amounts/length of alimony payments.
Bill Null
Morristown, NJ