I recently wrote an article on women in the mid-forties and on, who have been married for over 15 years and ended up divorced. One of the issues that many of them discussed is the idea that women should pay taxes to the IRS on alimony that has already been taxed. Essentially, this money is double taxed. When you understand the premise for alimony, (whether one agrees with it or not), according to a divorce court, that money is given to sustain a woman's life because of a breech of promise. It is not considered earned income. So we have the wonderful IRS declaring that it is income. Your thoughts?
2007-05-24 05:03:28 · 21 answers · asked by Just a writer at the sea... 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
well... maybe? if a woman is entitled to half of a mans property then if he pays half the tax so should she? and if she was so smart to marry the wrong man then maybe she will think twice before getting married again ? if women thinks that her `job` entitles her to half of what her husband earned over his lifetime no matter how short they were married then i guess i am entitled to half of my companies income divided by the [wives] employees working there if i get fired or laid off ? because i got use to the `lifestyle of having a paycheck`.
2007-05-24 05:08:20 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes!!! If for no other reason than, "Nothing in life is free". I suspect those women, and men that have decided to make their own way are not concerned with such an issue. As for "double taxing" it is not an act that is only associated with alimony. If you win the lottery, there is a tax on the initial winnings, and its taxed again on your income tax. As for a "provision" it seems the IRS looks at this word as a verb rather than a noun. Provision is defined as, something provided; a measure or other means of meeting a need. So, you have been provided with alimony (provision). You then purchase items/meet needs with the alimony (income). In this country income is taxed (unless you're rich enough to hide it).
2007-05-24 05:34:18 · answer #2 · answered by Futeach 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Alimony is a very tricky and volatile subject. Obviously. However, the fact is that alimony IS income (whether received by a man or woman). And if I'm not mistaken the payer of alimony can write it off on his/her taxes. So while the money is initially being double taxed, no individual is being double-taxed and one individual gains a tax credit.
2007-05-24 05:50:13 · answer #3 · answered by blueyeznj 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why should it be treated any differently than inherited money (money already taxed) or dividends (money already taxed) or Social Security (money that was completely taxed)?
I don't believe in double taxation, and would rather have a federal sales tax (the Fair Tax) as opposed to the current income, inheritance and payroll taxes that we currently have. But why should only one type of transferred money, alimony, be free from the double taxation that other transferred money is subject to?
It's best for everybody when government no longer has access to your private financial records.
2007-05-24 05:23:50 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Actually, most Conservatives don't believe that. I'm not a Conservative, and I don't believe it, although I agree with them on many fiscal issues, and this is one of them. The fact is that the "rich" are able to pass on most of their taxes to someone else. That's just a fact of Life, and there isn't anything anyone can do to change it. Slap a $1,000 per unit tax on new cars and see what happens to new car prices. Given that fact, which all but the dumbest people in Congress figure out pretty fast, Liberal or Conservative, could the wealthiest paying a lower tax rate be otherwise? You can't tax the poor, they don't have anything. You can't tax the rich, they pass the tax on to others. The middle class always pays, and there's nothing you can do to make it otherwise. The more you try, the more the middle class is punished.
2016-05-17 04:13:05 · answer #5 · answered by deidre 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree that it should not be taxed because it has already been taxed.
I think one way to solve this problem(along with many others) is to scrap the income tax and pass the Fair Tax(H.R.25/S.25). Eliminate the IRS, repeal the 16th amendment, and put a charge into the American economy and take away our politicians' toy. It will put the American people back on the same team. The income tax is a divider(rich vs poor, business vs consumer, worker vs boss, etc) and our politicians in Washington use it as an election tool.
2007-05-24 05:16:36 · answer #6 · answered by srdongato2 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Many things in life are "double taxed". Alimony is supplemental income. You cant fill out your taxes and put say 20k a year when you got an additional 10k in alimony.
Ha, sustain a women's life.... not exactly true. It's to sustain the type of life the woman was custom to when she was married.
If it were only to sustain the women's life then athletes wouldn't be paying hundreds of thousands a year.
2007-05-24 05:11:25 · answer #7 · answered by bushnellparty 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Now with Alimony when applying for a loan its considered income and can be used in other words considered to buy such things as a home or car. So If you wish this income to be made "Tax Free" Then It should become that Lenders Not consider this when looking for a loan. Then It Evens Things out... Mmmm...
2007-05-24 05:10:48 · answer #8 · answered by Scott 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
It is income. Therefore privy to taxation.
Things like scholarships, Child support all taxable income. Income does not have to be earned to be taxed.
Your ex will actually get to claim back most of the taxes he payed on the alimony, so effectively in the end you are the only one paying taxes on it.
2007-05-24 05:10:46 · answer #9 · answered by smedrik 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Alimony is a way for women to get money for nothing. They can sit around and do nothing and be paid for it!!! The entire practice is obsolete. It is based on the outmoded delusion that women are helpless and need a man to take care of them. They don't! Women are every bit as capable of making a success of them selves as men. If alimony is necessary to help a woman who did not work for 15 years while she was married it should be temporary!!! Allot of the times the woman dose not want to work or further her education while married yet when divorce comes this is not brought up. She is just the poor victim of the man and she was forced to not work!!! This dose not apply to child support. Both parents need to support the children
As for taxes.....It is money coming to the woman she needs to pay taxes on it.
Semper Fi!!!
2007-05-24 05:17:25 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋