There's a lot to unpack here : linkedinlunatics

[–] Delphia@lemmy.world 191 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Malicious compliance story.

Friend of mine was paying child support for his kids, his ex wife was claiming no income as she had to look after the kids which he knew was bullshit and she was working in the new boyfriends restaraunt but claimed that she was just "helping out when she could. That stopped for a year when her and her new boyfriend wanted to buy a house, so he gave her a very nicely paid job working at his restaraunt as a "manager". They found and bought a house and immediately she was "fired" and went back to seeking child support.

So he sued to have the child support lowered as she can clearly work when it suits her goals and she fought it kicking and fucking screaming, tried taking away his access to the kids and generally making his life hell. So he went to the tax office with a hot tip "I'm willing to bet that between (insert dates here) this restaraunt somehow took in exactly (insert what ex-wife made + taxes) more than they normally do per year. Id be willing to bet it was their best year ever and I guarantee you will find some very cooked books"

Turns out its really easy to get custody when your ex-wife is being charged with fraud and tax evasion.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago (3 children)

So he went to the tax office with a hot tip

You had me up until here. But the idea that a local tax office is going to follow a "hot tip" off of anyone, much less an ex-husband, is laughable. I've had to negotiate with the staff of my local tax office before and they don't move a muscle unless someone up the bureaucratic chain orders it. Maybe this guy was friends with the State AG somehow? Or some other senior bureaucrat? But past that, this sounds like total fiction.

[–] BuboScandiacus@mander.xyz 1 points 1 day ago

I know that this might surprise you: other countries than the USA exist

[–] Delphia@lemmy.world 20 points 10 months ago

Ok. I dont care.

[–] stratoscaster@lemmy.world 15 points 10 months ago

I thought that the IRS actually does have a anonymous tip line?

https://www.irs.gov/compliance/reporting-other-information-to-the-irs

[–] Willie@lemmy.world 167 points 10 months ago (1 children)

No matter how you feel about it, he was a fool to make a public post about it.

[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 74 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Only if you assume he was telling the truth and not a tall story

[–] DarkDarkHouse@lemmy.sdf.org 36 points 10 months ago

“This profile is a safe space for billionaires…” gives it away.

[–] Gullible@sh.itjust.works 108 points 10 months ago (3 children)

I’m 99% sure that alimony doesn’t work like that in the US. Are there any countries where it does work that way?

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 56 points 10 months ago (2 children)

From my understanding, I believe it does, in that if your income decreased, your alimony can be reduced.

Of course, this is almost certainly a work of fiction.

[–] kn33@lemmy.world 60 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Sure, but once your income goes back up so does the alimony, at least in the US

[–] psud@aussie.zone 3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Wasn't there a comedian/actor who was/is living in Canada to avoid maintenance payments he couldn't possibly make, as the calculation was done with he had just received about three years income in a single cheque, and he doesn't actually make 3 years income each month

I wouldn't be surprised, based on that, if what matters is income on the day of the court order

[–] washbasin@sh.itjust.works 9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Dave Foley

Foley married Canadian writer Tabatha Southey on December 31, 1991.[14] They divorced in 1997.[14] The couple has two children.[14] In 2001, an interim child support agreement obligated Foley to pay Southey $10,700 a month, a figure based on his income when NewsRadio was in production. By 2011, Foley claimed that his earnings had declined to the point that the $10,700 sum constituted "literally 400 percent of [his] income" but he was unable to get the obligation reduced in court

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Foley

[–] Maalus@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Usually it is your "potential". I.e. a programmer can't just decide to drop programming and start something that doesn't bring any money. It's also possible to renegotiate it if you lost a job or the like.

[–] rtxn@lemmy.world 32 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Not necessarily. I recall a court case where an ex-husband tried to reduce alimony payments by quitting a well-paying job in tech to work at a fast food restaurant, got sued by the wife, and was ordered by the judge to continue paying the previous amount because he was clearly qualified and able to retain the job and had created the situation on purpose.

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

He quit the job, rather than being fired, correct?

[–] Maalus@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

He'll still be paying it even if fired. He would need to seek out a job that is at a similar level and would get the alimony adjusted if it pays a little more. But you can't suddenly decide to quit a field you are qualified for, have plenty of opportunities to work in etc, to chase a fast food career. Even if you get fired and do that, the judge will see it as malicious - you wouldn't do that if you had a family to support.

Also, if you prove you cannot find a job and are looking, they'll adjust it too, and will let you find a shittier job in the meantime. It's just if you do it all maliciously where they will say "nope"

[–] HootinNHollerin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 27 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Guessing both dudes are in India

[–] Gullible@sh.itjust.works 12 points 10 months ago (3 children)

At least somewhere in southern mainland Asia, yes, but I’m curious about whether this joke would actually work in any countries, India included. Are you affirming that it works in India?

[–] HootinNHollerin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

It’s a LinkedIn post I donno any details but u can sleuth it up

[–] embed_me@programming.dev 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

It works because it highlights two issues in India, the justice system being in favour for women and the casual misogynism

[–] Gullible@sh.itjust.works 5 points 10 months ago

I meant to ask whether this premise would function irl, but this interpretation is funnier.

[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Everyone must always affirm the joke in the meme works. You affirm all of your memes, correct?

[–] Gullible@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

When someone asks a topic-adjacent question, ye. Or I post nonsense to feel like I’m included in the conversation. Why do you ask?

Edit: just realized you took this comment without considering the previous one. I geddit

[–] Demdaru@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago

Where I live my father got a solid quote to pay each month. My mother could sue for more, however, when his income rose. So this dude, after posting this online, opened the gate for the woman to sue his employee, at least if it happened here.

[–] altasshet@lemmy.ca 95 points 10 months ago (1 children)

We are aware that the original post is a joke, right? "Safe space for billionaires"?! Though I think the reposter at the top might not have clued in.

[–] HootinNHollerin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 40 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yea that’s why I included the repost

[–] altasshet@lemmy.ca 20 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Thanks for confirming. My comment wasn't really aimed at you, more at the thread as a whole.

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 46 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I mean, he's got the spirit? Is this chaotic neutral?

[–] Black_Quajutsu@lemmy.blahaj.zone 26 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It's lawful evil if anything

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You might have a point looking at the state of society and the legality of that action in their country. But without any of that information it looks like their just serving their and their own's best interest which would fall under the neutral category in DnD. Thus we see why alignment charts suck tarrasque balls.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I’d say if you get married in a place with alimony, then you do ethically owe your spouse alimony in the case of divorce. Part of the understanding under which the relationship commitments were made.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, I have a friend who's fighting her husband for alimony. He married her knowing she had mental health issues that hindered her ability to work, then a few months after she started working again he decided that he needs to move halfway around the world with or without her. She just wants enough money to not have to give up her animals while building up her income or downgrading her living situation.

And then there are stories like my gf whose ex husband tried to force her to stay unemployed (parrly utilizi his being in the military) while abusing her. She accepted no alimony and getting fucked on child support to get out of the marriage faster and with the kids.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

It sucks when a person has to negotiate under enormous pressure.

[–] timewarp@lemmy.world 31 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Now the wife has every reason to to seek back pay & take more. She can just tell the judge, what else was he lying about?

[–] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 17 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Depends, is this illegal? Did the employee know they where going to get rehired during the trial. Was it a lie to state they where not employed?

I feel this is morally wrong but not quite punishable. If annything the system is broken for allowing such loophole. Either they owe a part of their income or they don’t. That part can be “zero” bur current employment shouldn't be part of that calculation.

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Also, alimony isn't a 1 meeting thing and then you're free.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yes. Lying to a court is illegal.

[–] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

I was not a fly in this court but seems like there is no reason to assume they lied about anything.

They where factually unemployed at the time of hearing.

They have the right to remain silent and not incriminate themselves about any potential rehiring.

It could also be setup by the boss without employee awareness, a excuse to rehire them after their business suffers (i fired you for your own good but i couldn’t tell you to not influence the legal system)

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

In general if you're going out of your way to make it technically legal you should run it by your lawyer and they're probably going to tell you it's not a good idea. In general if you feel like you've found a legal loophole in everyday life your lawyer will advise against it

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That is the most generous reading possible of the facts considering the boss and employee talked about the divorce. Are you his defense lawyer or something? Or do you just defend shitbags on the Internet for free?

[–] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

No i have mentioned i find this sort of behaviour immoral, especially considering this is about child support. the discussion is whether any statement was a lie and therefore illegal.

It is my take that the system of law is broken in a way that makes such immoral loopholes possible. I believe the fact that such things are possible is a worse problem then the individual cases where people exploit such.

I didn't know whether or not the boss or employee planned it in advance. Which is what i meant with i wasn't a fly. All i know is a headline triggering my dissatisfaction with the legal system.

[–] lemmy_get_my_coat@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

That just make me so much more relieved that she's fictional

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 1 points 10 months ago

Only after the clapping subsides.

[–] AngryishHumanoid@lemmynsfw.com 13 points 10 months ago

Obvious troll is obvious.

[–] blindbunny@lemmy.ml 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Neither of these men have been divorced, yet.

[–] icecreamtaco@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Actually good but he still writes like a psycho

LinkedinLunatics