So, a sign of an improving economy is full employment for divorce lawyers?
In a perverse sign of the economic recovery, the US divorce rate, which dipped in the recession, has bounced back, lawyers and matrimonial experts say.
A stronger economy, lower unemployment and a housing market that – while still weak – is no longer in free fall are all contributing to a rebound in divorce filings.
“There is huge pent-up demand,” said Marshal Willick, a Las Vegas matrimonial attorney, who has noted an upturn in his business.
During the recession, couples who were out of work or unable to sell their house stayed married to save money. The percentage of the population 15 years and older who counted themselves divorced dropped to 9.7 in 2009, from 9.9 three years earlier, according to the Census Bureau. More than half of the 1,600 attorneys who are members of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers reported a downturn in their business in 2009, the most recent year for which survey data are available.
Now, those same lawyers are inundated with new clients.
Yeah, right, we’re all just rolling in money again. In other news, some guy who couldn’t figure out what else to write an “article” about, says that 41% of all statistics have dropped from 23% to 22%…..
We interrupt this broadcast to announce that the working poor are starting to seriously think about killing and cooking bankers and politicians in order to feed their children.
Sad but true. Going through a surprise divorce now. Will be final June 6. Oh weak housing market kills selling or refinance when you owe more than it’s worth.
Or maybe they’re anticipating BHO’s new tax plan where a single person pays higher taxes on income over $200,000 but married couples get a tax screwing at $250,000? What’s up with that? Bringing back the marriage tax?
Oh, well. Unless one of these little brown SE Asian beauty’s gets a strangle hold on me, my marriage days are over.
Hilarious that this should come up. I know a couple that put off the divorce due to the court fee, no need for lawyers they were willing to split evenly as they didn’t own anything. After 6 months of watching them live miserable with each other, we (friends and family) pooled our money to get them divorced.
I saw the future Mrs. Ray the other night, gorgeous, witty, intelligent, $$, but my dog woke me up from that nightmare. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
Well I am sure glad the 2008-2011 depression is all over now. I was worried that it would drag on and on and on.
Now in non-fiction reality, I think the author of the article may have missed the point that couples that are already unhappy together are hellishly miserable when there are financial troubles added to the mix. I think that would have more to do with higher divorce rates than this politically motivated, fictional concept that we are now in a recovery from this depression.
When will retail banking be divorced from investment banking? Never, they are co-dependant.
I have heard that a LBFM will keep you happy if you set her up properly in her home country, and never let her go to the USA (where she’ll be forever corrupted).
I’m married to my work.
#2 – It sounds like you need some Jewish lightening. Unfortunately it’s about 4 bucks a gallon now but one should do.
Yea. Imagine being “trapped” in a bad marriage but you are in a rut. Then one or the other wins the lottery. Who would stay married rather than take half the winnings and get on with your life?
the value of money is the OPTIONS it provides. Silly Republicans think it is an object in itself.
Animby–my fantasy would be a tall tanned French-Thai mix. I know they exist, I’ve seen artist’s renditions of them. Who wouldn’t want to be in love?
Well, I’ve been married. More than twice. And I’ve learned one thing. There is one all important way to have a happy, committed, successful marriage. And I’m never gonna get married again until I find it.
I hope.
I don’t know why we become over committed to things that don’t actually work. Thats actually the “theme” to my one great American Novel, but it languishes as I wait to find the silver lining: what positive thing can we learn from this?
I have come up with two choices so far, neither appealing to me:
1. Understand the game, make your best choice, hope for the best. It does happen.
2. Become a bit self centered–love while it is happening, and when it stops, deal with the reality and move on.
Number one appeals to me the most and may actually feed right into Number two?
Hey, maybe thats it?
Ah, yes, divorce … from the Latin word meaning to rip out a man’s genitals through his wallet. – Robin Williams
Sorry Austin, that sound wickedly awful.
article makes no sense, we’re nowhere near an economic recovery so the rise in divorces can’t be attributed to that, ridiculous
#15 Actually, we are in an economic recovery as measured by the people who measure economic recoveries with a standard economic recovery yardstick.
The upper and educated middle class are seeing excellent recovery. The dingbats and peasants, not so much. Be patient.
# 16 Dallas said,”The upper and educated middle class are seeing excellent recovery. The dingbats and peasants, not so much. Be patient.”
Be patient? Good lord, Dullass, you’re not suggesting it might … trickle down?!?!?!?!
I’m curious. If we are in a recovery, was the failure to raise income taxes that did it?
I’m also curious. If lowering taxes is a magic bullet, why did we need a recovery in the first place?
#5, Bubba,
I understand how you feel. Believe me. For instance, take my wife. Please. Take her. I’ll even toss in bus fare.
From an email I received-
Marriage is like a deck of cards. You start out with two hearts and a diamond. Sooner or later you wish you had a f^cking club and a spade.
#19, When we lower them, I’ll let you know.
http://truthandpolitics.org/top-rates-graph.php
So lowered by 3 % doesn’t count, but raising by 3% is
OMGEvilGov’tIsTakingMyMoneyAndDestroyingTheEconomy!!!!!11!1!!1!one!!eleven!!
Man, the late 20’s must have been amazing economically!
Alternatively the 50’s must have been a depression the likes of which we’ve never seen!
Things are more complex than your self serving dogma would imply.
Or maybe the depression was the fault of rich people not remodeling their kitchens enough.
#24–tcc3==ha, ha. You aren’t letting that kitchen thing go are ya? Cracks me up. But if Loser could understand it “ever” he wouldn’t have used that argument to begin with AND he’s still on the low taxes/trickledown/theRichgiveusJobs drivel that maintains the Puke Party.
Nonetheless, very funny.
#23/#24, You’re blaming a 3% drop 10 years ago? BWAHAHAHAHA!!!
Here are some interesting numbers for you.
45% of federal revenue is collected through personal income taxes
40% of GDP is consumed by government (all levels: federal, state and local)
40% of income tax filers pay either no taxes or have a negative tax burden
Based upon these, it should be clear that a person who actually pays the income tax is going to be handing over in the neighborhood of 50% of their total productivity to the government.
And you want 3% more?
Alternatively the 50′s must have been a depression the likes of which we’ve never seen!
If you’ll look at the actually “effective tax rate” during that time, you’ll see it was actually less than it is today. There were a lot of deductions back then.
And $400,000 in 1955 dollars is worth about $3.3M in today’s dollars, not $200,000.
You are wanting to increasing tax rates above what they were then. Someone making $24,000 in 1955 is the equivalent to someone making $200,000 today. The high tax rates you sprout wood about in the 50s was reserved for the equivalent of multi-millionaires today.
And there effective tax rate was less than 20%.
Or maybe the depression was the fault of rich people not remodeling their kitchens enough.
Oh, so I’m a rich person now? I can’t wait to tell my wife!
Here is a good description of effective tax rate since they started collecting income taxes.
http://tinyurl.com/y8vwyzl
Here are the numbers used in the graphs.
http://tinyurl.com/6yztlvw
The government brings in a much larger chunk of people’s income today than it did in the 50s. You can’t compare the two eras because it is an apple/orange comparison.
That and the 7 conflicting articles I just read are all very interesting. The fact that you can take this data and conclude opposite things tells me this is quite complicated. Far more so than some would have us believe.
Whats not complicated is that we aren’t paying for the government we have. A fair chink of that failure to pay is from recent tax breaks. Those tax breaks have not been the economic magic bullet they were advertised as. They didn’t do anything to help us tread water in 2k3, they didn’t prevent 2k8, and they aren’t doing much for the recovery in 2k11. Revenue did not magically increase to pay for war, or the rest of government.
Is the government we have all necessary? Probably not. That’s a discussion worth having. We can find some waste to eliminate. We can cut back on military boondoggles. But we should pay for what we have while we decide what we *should* have. This “starve the beast” plan conservatives have been pushing is not working, its dangerous, and its dishonest. An honest discussion about what we want government to be/do is what we need. Not this false propaganda argument “All taxes are slavery, I should pay nothing” vs “Tax 100% of all income.”
#28, Those numbers are facts based on government historical data. I am not sure how anybody could surmise the opposite unless they wanted to.
Your last paragraph was interesting. The government we have is not necessary. It IS a boondoggle. There is too much money and nobody knows where it is going.
AFA your “starve the beast” statement, I am not sure how to get the spending under control without starving it. Neither of the two major parties is ever going to agree to cut out their favorite programs. And, oh yes, they both have them. IMNSHO, cutting off the money supply is the only way to get them under our control again.
The deficit is $1.7T. Cutting out 100% of all deductions will only reduce it $1T, leaving $700B left. Taxing the top 5% of the country (those making 80% of the money) by an additional 6% (non-deductible) would cover the additional deficit.
But next year you wouldn’t have it anymore because they would have moved overseas.
Our only choice is to reduce the spending. That means, we have to reduce it at least $1.7T just to keep from going further in debt. Personally, I would also like to start paying down on the current debt. Where are we going to get that much money?
If someone would come up with a workable solution that made sense (and I’ve only seen one so far), then I would listen. Right now, the only option open to us is to turn off the
spigot.
Except that no one is turning off the spigot. They’re just using the budget argument as lip service to eliminate programs they disagree with, without regard to its real budgetary impact.
Any serous discussion of the budget/deficit is going to have to include raising taxes *and* cutting spending – including reforming/fixing Medicare, SS, and military spending.
The boogeymen of 100% taxation and 100% spending cuts are distractions that only serve to prolong the problem.
#30, Whether I agree with you or not on all points, it will never happen.
Just start saving your tuna fish and stocking up on bullets.
http://tinyurl.com/3owrpxr