Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 26

Thread: 'Radical' proposal would change the way retired pay is divided in divorce cases

  1. #1
    Senior Member Bos Mutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,468
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)

    'Radical' proposal would change the way retired pay is divided in divorce cases

    Former spouses might get a smaller share of a military member's monthly retirement pay if Congress passes legislation that some are describing as a “radical rewrite” of the law regarding the division of marital assets when military couples divorce.
    It would require state courts to award payments to ex-spouses of service members based on the rank and years of service at the time of divorce — not the rank and years of service at the time of retirement, as is currently the case. In some cases, it will mean the spouse will get a smaller share of the service member’s monthly retirement.


    read more: http://www.militarytimes.com/story/m...ases/87913902/
    Seems like more of a relatively minor tweak than a radical change...but could make a big difference for individual people for sure.


    One quote

    this proposal would cause great harm to spouses and former spouses going through separation and divorce, people that have sacrificed their careers and their own retirement, with the hope of sharing the military member’s final retired pay — or, upon divorce — of getting a fair share of that actual retired pay, not a benefit frozen in time for years before,” Sullivan said.

    ...Sullivan needs to remember that the former spouses 'sacrificing of their own careers and own retirement...' is also frozen at the time of divorce...why should they continue to gain benefit from the servicemembers future advancement...or conversely, be harmed by the servicemembers future misconduct?

    I've long thought that the fairest way to divide military retirement would be devise some sort of actuarial table that converts rank/years to an approximate cash value and give the spouse half that amount and be done...let the servicemembers future advancement, lack thereof, or demotion, etc. be their's alone.
    The Voice of Reason

  2. #2
    Senior Member Rusty Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    3,923
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bos Mutus View Post
    Seems like more of a relatively minor tweak than a radical change...but could make a big difference for individual people for sure.


    One quote




    ...Sullivan needs to remember that the former spouses 'sacrificing of their own careers and own retirement...' is also frozen at the time of divorce...why should they continue to gain benefit from the servicemembers future advancement...or conversely, be harmed by the servicemembers future misconduct?

    I've long thought that the fairest way to divide military retirement would be devise some sort of actuarial table that converts rank/years to an approximate cash value and give the spouse half that amount and be done...let the servicemembers future advancement, lack thereof, or demotion, etc. be their's alone.
    It could definitely be worse. There's no ten year minimum, or any minimum at all, for federal civilians.
    "Well... Uber's going to "driverless" cars soon, and their research probably shows that they're a natural fit (when it comes to getting paid for doing nothing)."
    -Rainmaker, referencing black males

  3. #3
    Senior Member Bos Mutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,468
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Jones View Post
    It could definitely be worse. There's no ten year minimum, or any minimum at all, for federal civilians.
    The so-called 10-year rule is an often misunderstood provision. There is no minimum for the court to divide military retiree pay.

    The only thing the 10-year rule does...is if the marriage was more than 10-years, the former spouse can get their own check directly from DFAS rather having to get it from the servicemember.
    Last edited by Bos Mutus; 08-01-2016 at 09:50 PM.
    The Voice of Reason

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Columbus, ohio
    Posts
    3,267
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bos Mutus View Post
    Seems like more of a relatively minor tweak than a radical change...but could make a big difference for individual people for sure.

    One quote
    people that have sacrificed their careers and their own retirement,
    Funny. Quite a lot of those i know the spouse didn't even have a career to sacrifice when they married, let alone 'retirement' the gave up. And often when they are married they do get jobs of their own (except those who become dependapottomouses..)

    Quote Originally Posted by Bos Mutus View Post
    ...Sullivan needs to remember that the former spouses 'sacrificing of their own careers and own retirement...' is also frozen at the time of divorce...why should they continue to gain benefit from the servicemembers future advancement...or conversely, be harmed by the servicemembers future misconduct?
    Personally if they are no longer part of the mil service man(woman)'s life, and they go on to re-enlist 2-3 more times before retiring, i don't see why they should even GET any of said service member's pay.. let alone any of his retirement.

  5. #5
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Annapolis, MD
    Posts
    2,788
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by garhkal View Post
    Funny. Quite a lot of those i know the spouse didn't even have a career to sacrifice when they married, let alone 'retirement' the gave up. And often when they are married they do get jobs of their own (except those who become dependapottomouses..)
    Keep in mind, a job isn't necessarily a career. It may not be that they had a career, if not there is the difficulty in establishing a career on the civilian side when you are moving every 2-4 years & if they had a career they are now possibly having to leave it to follow their spouse. Yes it is a choice, one done in support of the family which is part of the reason I don't have an issue with the pension being eligible for consideration as community property.

    I know a lot of spouses (& former spouses) who work and have to change jobs every time the family PCS's to a new duty station while the military member's career continues on without interruption. If the military member is able to homestead in one area it isn't as much of an impact, but if you can't it can be an issue. I have been really lucky, my wife's employer has transferred her every time we had to relocate so this wasn't an issue for us and we are now homesteaded in this area (likely until I retire), but for many I know this is a persistent problem that impacts the spouse's ability to establish, maintain or improve a career.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Bos Mutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,468
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by garhkal View Post
    Funny. Quite a lot of those i know the spouse didn't even have a career to sacrifice when they married, let alone 'retirement' the gave up.
    Some do, some don't.

    And often when they are married they do get jobs of their own (except those who become dependapottomouses..)
    Some do, some don't.

    Personally if they are no longer part of the mil service man(woman)'s life, and they go on to re-enlist 2-3 more times before retiring, i don't see why they should even GET any of said service member's pay.. let alone any of his retirement.
    I'm not aware that they get any of the pay...except maybe if the court orders alimony or something...the retirement bit is trying to equate it to civilian divorce, sort of. If you are in a civilian job with a 401K and get divorced...the 401K normally gets divided. Pensions also...military members like to pretend they are some kind of special victim because of the USFSPA, but they aren't. They are just like everyone else, pretty much. You get married, you enter into a joint financial agreement...

    That said, this adjustment makes sense to me...in the sense that it seems fair, but it might be a bit of federal overreach. Divorces are state court business and should probably be left there.

    Of course, state legislators/courts are already free to do this if they choose...not sure why this guy is saying he was unable to do it as a state legislator due to conflicts with federal law...the federal law just allows states to deal with the federal pension how they want..it doesn't tell them how they should do it.
    Last edited by Bos Mutus; 08-02-2016 at 01:55 PM.
    The Voice of Reason

  7. #7
    Senior Member Rainmaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    on a Marl Road
    Posts
    3,812
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    Keep in mind, a job isn't necessarily a career. It may not be that they had a career, if not there is the difficulty in establishing a career on the civilian side when you are moving every 2-4 years & if they had a career they are now possibly having to leave it to follow their spouse. Yes it is a choice, one done in support of the family which is part of the reason I don't have an issue with the pension being eligible for consideration as community property.

    I know a lot of spouses (& former spouses) who work and have to change jobs every time the family PCS's to a new duty station while the military member's career continues on without interruption. If the military member is able to homestead in one area it isn't as much of an impact, but if you can't it can be an issue. I have been really lucky, my wife's employer has transferred her every time we had to relocate so this wasn't an issue for us and we are now homesteaded in this area (likely until I retire), but for many I know this is a persistent problem that impacts the spouse's ability to establish, maintain or improve a career.

    USFSPA was originally pitched as a way to prevent these General Officer scumbags from dumping their old hag wives for younger trophies and leaving them destitute, after a lifetime of service. It's a noble sounding idea and There'd probably be no problem with this law, if not for the fact that all 50 states now have 'NO FAULT DIVORCE' laws (which prevent people from being held accountable for their actions).

    USFSPA needs more than just a radical change. It should be repealed immediately. It's sponsor was the radical feminist CONgresswoman Pat Schroeder (that hated both men and the male dominated Military).

    In Rainmaker's experience, More often than not, USFSPA just allows Psycho bitch ex-wives to fuck over the G.I's for the rest of their lives.
    Last edited by Rainmaker; 08-02-2016 at 01:57 PM.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Columbus, ohio
    Posts
    3,267
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    Keep in mind, a job isn't necessarily a career. It may not be that they had a career, if not there is the difficulty in establishing a career on the civilian side when you are moving every 2-4 years & if they had a career they are now possibly having to leave it to follow their spouse. Yes it is a choice, one done in support of the family which is part of the reason I don't have an issue with the pension being eligible for consideration as community property.
    Point taken, a job is not necessarily a career, but they still work..

    Quote Originally Posted by Bos Mutus View Post
    I'm not aware that they get any of the pay...except maybe if the court orders alimony or something...the retirement bit is trying to equate it to civilian divorce, sort of. If you are in a civilian job with a 401K and get divorced...the 401K normally gets divided. Pensions also...military members like to pretend they are some kind of special victim because of the USFSPA, but they aren't. They are just like everyone else, pretty much. You get married, you enter into a joint financial agreement...
    But where a lot of people see the difference between the civilians 401K and the military members retirement, is that Said mil member can technically be recalled. Whether to active service as needed by the CIC, or cause of gross violations of the UCMJ, so he can face courts martial (i have seen it happen twice)..

  9. #9
    Senior Member Bos Mutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,468
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by garhkal View Post
    Point taken, a job is not necessarily a career, but they still work..

    But where a lot of people see the difference between the civilians 401K and the military members retirement, is that Said mil member can technically be recalled. Whether to active service as needed by the CIC, or cause of gross violations of the UCMJ, so he can face courts martial (i have seen it happen twice)..
    Yes...I would assume that once recalled, they go back on active duty pay.

    ..there are differences between 401K and IRAs, differences between 401Ks and defined pension plans...differences between the State of Texas retirement plans for state workers and Federal govt. FERS....differences between military retirement plans and astronaut application forms.

    No two things are alike...and basically everyone wants to show how "the difference between my plan and other plans means the rules should be different on mine to benefit me more."

    Bottom line principle is that when you get married, you agree to share EVERYTHING. If you don't like that deal, you're just not ready for marriage.

    Meh...
    The Voice of Reason

  10. #10
    Senior Member Rainmaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    on a Marl Road
    Posts
    3,812
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Another key difference is that a 401K has a known present value, at the time of the divorce. A lot of times what happens is that court requires the man to cash out his 401K and pay the entitled cheating bitch a % (of what's left after taxes/ penalties and fees). The state sponsored prostitute doesn't get to stake claim to his future contributions and continue financially raping his earnings for the rest of his life.

    It's also important to note that the concept of "No fault Divorce" first originated in Bolshevik Russia, In order to destroy the traditional family structure and allow the Communist State to Manage the population.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-fault_divorce

    "The earliest precedent[citation needed] in no-fault divorce laws was originally enacted in Russia shortly after the Bolshevik Revolution. The 1918 Decree on Divorce allowed divorce "by mutual consent declared at the Registry Office, or upon the application of one spouse to the court."[3] The purpose of the Soviet no-fault divorce laws was ideological, intended to revolutionize society at every level.[3][4]"

    Hello McFly? Are we seeing the trend here yet? It's always The Same.... Fucking..... Agenda....... Every.....Fucking..... Time.....

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •