Dark Theme
SFW Mode

278,618 posts archived


[–]Goateeki 12 points12 points [recovered]

In the current climate, you’re better off taking a job cleaning nuclear reactors or defusing bombs than getting married. That’s not a joke. Productive males now occupy the role of helots.

[–]Jkrew 95 points96 points  (24 children)

Temp work at a nuke plant during an outage can net you 20k in 3 months. So yeah you're right.

[–]Swelfie 70 points71 points  (10 children)

And I've worked in nuclear. It's not a dangerous field at all and really isn't difficult work (the constant focus in safety slows everything down to a point where it's damn near leisurely.)

Interesting statistic: there are about 20 nuclear reactors in the US and 1500 coal plants. The nuclear plants supply 20% of the electricity, the coal 80% (other plants are just a blip). The deaths attributable to a single coal plant during it's life on average are more than the deaths attributable to the combined deaths of the entire worldwide nuclear industry combined since it's inception.

[–]TheBattleshipYamato 59 points60 points  (7 children)

The nuclear plants supply 20% of the electricity, the coal 80% (other plants are just a blip).

That's not right. The division is about

  • 15% renewables
  • 20% nuclear
  • 30% coal
  • 34% gas

[–]halfback910 11 points12 points  (5 children)

Nuclear is up to 20% now?

That makes me happy. It's a pretty great source of energy. and the more we use it and the more money is wrapped up in it, the more it will be researched and the better it will get.

[–]krick3t 30 points31 points  (0 children)

My journeyman electrician always say that nuke work is hide n seek for a grand a week.

Just because every single thing you install has to be inspected so you spend 90% of your time sitting around waiting

[–]RamboFarts 9 points10 points  (0 children)

There’s 98 plants. Well we over 150 reactors.

[–]ShekelBanker 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Where do I sign up and what do I need to know?

[–]KekGratiaRex 34 points35 points  (1 child)

Nuclear power is actually one of the safest fields of energy to work.

Coal plants are far, far worse.

[–]halfback910 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Yes. Nuclear power plants and passenger airplanes are some of the very few operations that can claim to successfully adhere to the goal of Six Sigma. Namely, to achieve four defects or fewer per one million opportunities.

[–]UCISee 29 points30 points  (0 children)

I got a divorce shortly after changing my job in the military to defusing bombs. 10/10 would approach an IED before a divorce.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Productive males now occupy the role of helots."

Based observation!

[–]CcyCV 5 points5 points [recovered]

I love how it’s intended for divorces happening after December 31 2018, but “it’s really important to women”. Women already planning on divorcing their spouse almost a year in advance?? Gosh

Edited twice because I can’t html

[–]1Dis_mah_mobile_one 39 points40 points  (1 child)

Women aren’t planning to divorce so much as they’re planning on always keeping their options open.

[–]IvanReilly 15 points16 points  (2 children)

You would have been ok without that last message because you edited in the first few minutes the comment does not show as edited.

[–]sd4c 155 points156 points  (19 children)

One of the dirty tricks I've seen done by women: chilimoney.

Instead of getting alimony, plus child support- she goes for a huge child support bill but no alimony.

Because alimony usually pays them for about half of the number of years married. But child support, is paid until the child is 18 (22 in some states!)

The worst case scenario, is if you're married (or common law + married) for 10 years or more.

In that case, many judges allow the woman to collect alimony, for LIFE.

This is supposed to be, until wife gets re-married... Or in some places, live with a guy... but she never will. She can spend your money and still be in a relationship eith her BF, AND still be cheating on the side.

There is no male equivalent to this, because:

90% of alimony is paid by men, towards women
No woman has ever gone to jail, for not paying child support or alimony debts. Whereas "deadbeat dads" go to jail all the time.

In one case, the ex-husband couldn't pay BECAUSE HE WAS BEING HELD HOSTAGE BY TERRORIST IN IRAQ.

The courts didn't help him. The day he returned to the US, sherriffs arrested him.

Anyway, can you imagine: a guy cheats on his wife. She catches him, he gets angry at HER saying it's her fault, and then files for divorce.

He gets a restraining order by exaggerating her normal, angry verbal reaction to finding someone in their bed. She gets kicked out by the police, can't return for her things, and is not allowed to see her kids.

The divorce drags out for two years, so now the kids are unaccustomed to spending time with their mother. Based on that and the fake threats, she's awarded supervised visitation twice a week for an hour. And no custody "until further evaluation", as to how the kids and mom get along.

She has to pay for the wages of the social worker, while they supervise the visits with her own kids.

She no longer recieves any money from her ex-husband, but is forced to go over there once a month, to fellate him. So that his standards of living stays the same.

He gets a new girlfriend, who gives him anal on a regular basis. So he's got two chicks at beck and call- but still slips off to the massage parlor every few weeks, for a hand job.

His ex-wife gets older, injured or sick. She explains to the judge- I can't suck his dick once a month. Im in chronic pain. I could tit-fuck him twice a month or give anal twice a year.

No dice, says the judge. Pay up and suck that cock. To make matters worse, she has to fuck her ex-husbands lawyer, as well.

It's all just too much. With every hole raw, unable to fuck properly- she's looking at jail -with men. As a kid, her dad was a cop. She knows what happens behind bars.

So at her next court hearing, she pours gas on herself, setting her self on fire in protest. The news covers the story, but doesn't publish her suicide note about how unfairly she was treated.

[–]2johnnight 82 points83 points  (5 children)

In one case, the ex-husband couldn't pay BECAUSE HE WAS BEING HELD HOSTAGE BY TERRORIST IN IRAQ. The courts didn't help him. The day he returned to the US, sherriffs arrested him.

He should have switched sides. /jokingbutnotreally

[–]1Zanford 42 points43 points  (3 children)

Your joke is deeper than you know....after all, he was fighting against a deeply patriarchal force which rules a society that favors men in divorce

And which will treat Western women so, so, so much worse if it ever becomes a voting majority in the West...

[–]sd4c 12 points13 points  (1 child)

You’re still in denial.

They like evil. Bad boys, terrorists, child murderers. Bank robbers, pirates, vampires, all villains. If Sharia comes to the West, the women will be treated worse in court, as you say.

But the men who come rape them, will be strong, sexy, and above all: mean. The sex will be hotter, and their kids will be stronger, precisely because they respect only cruelty and power. Compassion, if sincere, is seen as a liability.

Women WANT this upcoming conflict. They love death and the killing of men, because it weeds out the weak ones. Never mind that some strong ones will be lost in the shuffle, by chance. Justice and fairness don’t get panties wet. Hot dick does, and hot dick is always attached to a killer.

[–]WayneMyers87 0 points1 point  (0 children)

lol who voted for the Iraq war again? women?

[–]Troll_Name 4 points5 points  (0 children)

That's the entire Family Law system in a nutshell.

Modern sheriffs are basically just fists of the courts.

[–]boogerboy23 1 points1 points [recovered]

Do you have sources for this info

[–]CommanderBlurf 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I'd love to have a link to the OIF serviceman story.

Always good to scare the FNGs that aren't 100% thinking with the small head.

[–]sd4c 2 points3 points  (2 children)

[–]boogerboy23 1 points1 points [recovered]

Not really sure what this has to do with anything

[–]sd4c 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's the source requested by another commenter.

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points  (6 children)

I hear about people going to jail for failure to pay child support all the time but I've never seen it. My sister got herself knocked up, probably to trap him, from a guy and he quickly bailed. He hasn't paid child support in 5 years. The gets out of it by just tossing $20 her way every now and then. They can't garnish his paychecks because he works the types of jobs that are off the books. I doubt he'll ever go to jail over it.

[–]1Zanford 38 points39 points  (2 children)

She probably hasn't pressed the courts on the matter b/c she knows he has almost no money to give

Women cut a lot of slack to outlaw deadbeat types with natural game (which I suspect this dude is); it's the 9 to 5 cubicle drones who get chewed up

[–]2Overkillengine 21 points22 points  (1 child)

The lesson being: Be more trouble than it is worth to go after.

Too many guys blindly trust the system to do the right thing while stockpiling easily extricable resources.

[–]sd4c 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is comment of the year so far. Very very true

[–]duhhhh 8 points9 points  (1 child)

For example...1 in 8 people in jail in South Carolina are there for non-payment of child support...


[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And they say the prisons are too crowded...

[–]1Entropy-7 3 points4 points  (0 children)

There are number of things she can do (although I don't know the specifics of her state law). Normally you have to file a financial statement stating assets, debts and income. It's effectively an affidavit and you can be cross-examined on it.

A guy can be "imputed" income if it is rather clear that he is hiding money or income, and a support order can be based on that income.

Then you file the order with your government enforcement agency. They can take his passport and drivers licence. I had one case where the guy purposefully went delinquent and that dragged on for a few years until he got picked up on a traffic violation and the cops found that there was a warrant for his arrest.

[–]RadioForMen 4 points4 points [recovered]

I'm sure the irs was annoyed dudes were giving women $40k a year tax free, and then the women weren't paying taxes on it because you dont really pay much on 40k income.

This will be entertaining if women start getting a lot less. Or it will drive guys to suicide if they have to give up even more of their after taxes income by percentage.

[–]I_STOMP_YOU 24 points25 points  (0 children)

IRS was already getting their cut with short term alimony. Look up alimony recapture tax. Now they're just extending it to everything.

[–]KobKZiggy 1 point2 points  (4 children)

So it's tax free when women are getting alimony because they pay almost nothing in taxes (that would not be tax free btw), but you believe that the men that are paying the alimony are going to pay higher taxes on the same 40k?

[–]RadioForMen 3 points3 points [recovered]

The women are getting low enough amounts to be in lower tax brackets.

The current rules reduce a mans taxable income sending him into lower tax brackets, and are not made up by the even lower tax brackets of the person/woman receiving the money.

[–]KobKZiggy 12 points13 points  (0 children)

I get that. But taxed less doesn't mean tax free.

I read the article after I commented. The person that is receiving the alimony pays no taxes on it, while the payer is. That is unfair.

[–]1Zanford 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Tax is progressive. The alimony payer tends to be the higher earner, therefore the tax on that $40k is more when it's counted as his income vs when it's counted as her income (which was the case when he could deduct it but she had to pay taxes on it)

[–]KobKZiggy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I know that. Original comment said "Tax Free". Not that they pay less. Less taxes does not equal tax free. That was the point.

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points  (1 child)

This matters because in negotiations the women will get less alimony because he already has to pay taxes on it. This came up in a divorce case recently.

[–]hotpotato70 1 point2 points  (0 children)

New divorces will drag out, and probably more divorces will go to the judge for decision.

Hopefully in the long term it will be better, but not for the next few years due to uncertainty.

[–]785714286 47 points48 points  (9 children)

Guys get your sperm on ice and get the snip even if you're in your 20s. There's an indescribable calm that comes from knowing that you can never be trapped in this web without your own consent.

[–]brokenglassinbed 26 points27 points  (1 child)

What a world we live in that we have to get snipped in order to protect ourselves.

[–]NorthEasternNomad 13 points14 points  (0 children)

I don't agree with everything TRP says...

But this? This is GOLD.

I saw a man whose wife chose to quit her job for school support her while he was in deployment. She got her degree, and immediately divorced him. Got alimony and child support.

I decided right then: never having kids. Gives others too much power over my life choices.

[–]Darkunicorntribe 7 points8 points  (2 children)

Book yourself a flight to India and get the vasalgel treatment.

[–]terminhateher1 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Clinical trials starting in the states this year(2 weeks now)....so maybe book a flight to India-na

[–]Darkunicorntribe 2 points3 points  (0 children)

But adoption might take years after that.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

There's an indescribable calm that comes from knowing that you can never be trapped in this web without your own consent.

Except we've already made sperm and eggs from animal skin cells, and are not far from doing it with humans. So both men and women better wear a full-body condom any time they're around someone who might want their kids.

[–]Herdsengineers 36 points37 points  (9 children)

I don't claim to be an expert, but I thought they were also substantially increasing the value of the standard deduction. Meaning that everyone gets to deduct more in general, and you don't have to itemize mortgage interest, other deductible expenses, including alimony.

The idea is that the increase in the standard deduction replaces summing up things when it's all itemized. If you take advantage of the increased standard deduction, you might come out ahead compared to how it's done currently.

Honestly, it's worth it to find a really good tax pro to help you tease out the nuances of this. Mine was an IRS agent for 20 years. The guy knows every loophole, grey area, and variance there is and is a whiz with this stuff. Don't go to just and CPA or tax service like HR Block or Liberty, etc. They have standard software, isn't much different from Turbo Tax to be honest. Go to an independent tax/account/finance type guy that runs his own solo shop. Those are the guys that know this stuff better.

[–]crimsonkodiak 35 points36 points  (2 children)

I don't claim to be an expert, but I thought they were also substantially increasing the value of the standard deduction. Meaning that everyone gets to deduct more in general, and you don't have to itemize mortgage interest, other deductible expenses, including alimony.

It doesn't even remotely come close to replacing the value of the lost deduction for alimony. The standard deduction increased by about $6000 for individuals. The amount alimony payable/deductible is often in the tens of thousands per year (in most states, a guy making $100K with a SAHM ex would be paying ~$30K per year), and not uncommonly even in the hundreds of thousands.

There's a reason why they noted the elimination of the alimony deduction as such a huge revenue increase.

[–]I_STOMP_YOU 9 points10 points  (1 child)

Bingo. The more you make and larger the gap with the ex wife the more you will get hit.

[–]thefisherman1961 10 points11 points  (1 child)

most people get to deduct more, but not everyone. the fact that they are cutting tax rates and simplifying the tax code, yet some people are still going to see their net incomes go down, just goes to show how screwed up the tax code was to begin with.

but the fact that you can’t deduct alimony anymore is just one more reason to never get married

[–]doklaan 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Or one more reason to get married if you are a low income female or want to be a sahm.

[–]Endorsed ContributorThotwrecker 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Your standard deduction is increased, but for higher income males paying high alimony, it's not nearly close - this is a huge hit.

For example in CA, let's take a 125k income. Not even a high income. That's about 85k after state and federal taxes with your 11.5k in deductions. Paying alimony after that - say 40k alimony - leaves you with 45k. This was through some online calculator for CA, so it's numbers from my ass, but not completely fabricated.

Compared to the previous case of 40k in alimony being deductable. That's you being taxed though you were in the lower 85k bracket, with half as much in deductions (~6k) which leaves you with 60k.

You're really coming out behind unless your alimony amount is lower than the increase in standard deduction - and if you are a decently well off guy, your alimony is going to be a lot higher than the increase to std deduction

[–]bob13bob 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Uncle Sam will get a much bigger cut now. I bet some people will now not legally divorce. Just have a separation agreement.

[–]TheRiseAndFall 0 points1 point  (1 child)

How do you go about finding a guy like that? Did you google for independent tax services in your area?

[–]Herdsengineers 0 points1 point  (0 children)

you can google for tax services, tax preparer, etc. or just pay attention to when you're driving around. i see little offices for tax guys and accountants that run their own shops in strip shopping centers all the time. go in and talk to them, ask them about taxes. they're competence will come thru in their responses.

[–]DorsalMorsel 14 points15 points  (1 child)

TL;DR The deep state is pissed that the taxpayer is no longer subsidizing alimony payments.

[–]ShadowOfAnIdea 15 points16 points  (34 children)

It was done not for the women who benefit but rather for the Christians it panders to. They see it as a disincentive to divorce, which they believe is hurtful to society at large.

At the same time it allows more to be collected by the fed, so there is a larger amount for them to potentially waste or steal.

[–]GoodLookingManAboutT 77 points78 points  (9 children)

If they want to reduce divorce, they need to focus on eliminating the scourge of "no fault" divorce laws.

Right now, your wife can cheat on you, abandon you, and take custody of your kids, and she will get richly rewarded by the courts who don't care to assign fault.

A truly biblical approach would be to stone that bitch.

[–]Fryguy48 8 points9 points  (7 children)

Stoning is old testament, but yeah I agree, if they want an alternative we need a better one than this shit.

[–]darkskies1094trump 21 points22 points  (4 children)

Even in the New testament, Jesus' response was (paraphrase) " Go away, and stop being a bitch."

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (3 children)

Islam is growing in numbers because they never sold out on the male head of household. Christianity is participating in the western cultural experiment of female head of household, and as a result hashtag higher power is penalizing Christianity by taking away members at growing velocity, now whole percentage points per year. We'll need to import more ISIS fighters as western men stop reproducing all together.

[–]Ayrab4Trump 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You've figured out our Semitic long-con plans!

[–]WayneMyers87 0 points1 point  (1 child)

islam is growing in numbers because they're from poor countries where people have more kids

[–]timowens862 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Absofucking lutely. They should be stoning these whores for cheating or divorcing. It says till death do us part, no divorces unless someone's dead

[–]Fryguy48 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well cheating is the only exception to this rule, however, it is on the ones head that cheated.

[–]ShadowOfAnIdea 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not a divorce lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that is not a true statement.

Also, chill the fuck out dude, 0-100 like an F1 car

[–]KobKZiggy 7 points8 points  (22 children)

You do know that almost all organized religions believe in marriage, and not getting divorced, right? I have never heard of a society that thinks that divorce is an OK think just because. This isn't a just Christian thing.

[–]UshankaDalek 5 points6 points  (13 children)

True. However, the vast majority of Americans are Christian or Catholic.

[–]KobKZiggy 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Catholic = Christian. Christianity is a faith, not a denomination.

[–]deeptimeswimmer 9 points10 points  (10 children)

Catholicism is a kind of christianity. It was the first type as well, so if anything it would be 'Christians and Protestants'

/jewish guy

//just wants to keep nomenclature straight.

[–]KobKZiggy 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Just like there are different types of Jewish. It really depends on how hard line and conservative the movement/teachings are.

[–]deeptimeswimmer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Exactly! And Islam as well.

[–]ThrowFader 1 point2 points  (7 children)

deleted What is this?

[–]krick3t 0 points1 point  (6 children)

Curious as to why? Who was first?

[–]UshankaDalek 1 point2 points  (5 children)

Catholicism is the religion of the Roman Catholic Church. The Church of Rome was not founded until Christianity was already in existence for decades, and did not become the church we think of today for another several hundred years.

The Roman Catholic Church (and similarly, the Eastern Orthodox Church) vary significantly from all other mainstream Christ-following religions. Some key differences with Catholicism include worship of the saints, confessions to priests, following the Pope, and a whole host of sacraments. Many Christians, myself included, reject Catholicism (and Eastern Orthodoxy) as branches of Christianity and consider them separate religions, due to their fundamental, irreconcilable differences.

[–]JWawryk 1 point2 points  (4 children)

All are just denominations of the Christian religion.

[–]ThrowFader 0 points1 point  (3 children)

deleted What is this?

[–]Ayrab4Trump 0 points1 point  (2 children)


TRP hates the shit out of MRAs (uber betas) & replaces MGTOW with Monk Mode.

[–]pill_thrower 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I thought they were Protestant? Did the Catholics take over?

[–]2johnnight -1 points0 points  (7 children)

You are wrong and lazy. It would have taken you 30 seconds to look it up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_divorce

[–]KobKZiggy 1 point2 points  (5 children)

Yes, I see that you have found Wikipedia. What it says, and how it is practiced is two different things. Most religions and societies look down upon divorcees and getting a divorce. Marriage and divorce are not just a "Christian thing", just as your wikipedia proved, as it has 3 Abrahamic religions, Buddhism, and couple lesser known religions that almost all have "marriage and divorce". Most of the examples given in your wonderfully in depth Wiki page are when things are "peaceful" and "mutual". We all know that it isn't always peaceful and mutual. Some require permission from both parties. We know that doesn't always happen.

The fact still remains that almost all major religions and societies have marriage and divorce, and most religions and societies don't want divorce.

[–]ShadowOfAnIdea -1 points0 points  (4 children)

Which is irrelevant because we're talking about American voters anyway, the overwhelming majority of whom are Christian

[–]KobKZiggy 0 points1 point  (3 children)

The point I'm making is it isn't just a "Christian" thing. People that blame "Christians" are just as bad and religious-phobic as people that blame Muslims, Jews, Satanists, whomever. It doesn't lead to actual discussion. Just pointing fingers and blaming some group.

[–]ShadowOfAnIdea 0 points1 point  (2 children)

This point is irrelevant to our conversation about American voters, most of whom are Christians being pandered to by the policy in question.

[–]KobKZiggy 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I don't believe it is pandering to Christians at all. Seems like the government being able to get more money from taxes is the point. Not morals of a religious group. Money, greed, and taxation is what it is "pandering" to.

[–]ShadowOfAnIdea 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As noted in the parent, they are far from mutually exclusive.

[–]legitimateusername4 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They are also relentlessly bluepill and cucked and fantasize that it's the man's fault for most marriages ending.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Jimmy Hendrix: "During prime farming season there is only one correct way to do it. Plow hard and plow long."

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

With all due respect to our fallen brothers, fuck em.

They are the canaries in the coal mine and the faster (and more horrid) they die the better the warning. Hopefully every young man will know an older dude living in poverty after divorce and he will be all the wiser.

[–]Oriiso 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This will be fixed in the coming g years when people just don't get married anymore. It's slowly happening now. Marriage rates and child birth are on a slow decline.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This won't hit women at all because in the end, the amount paid is usually a judgement. One that doesn't take into account the tax implications. This is just men getting fucked in the ass once again.

[–]SkaTSee 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Does anybody have a source on their 98% of people receiving alimony are women according to the Census Bureau? I tried looking it up, but all I could find were stats leading up to 1989, but no further (in which it was nearly, if not, 100% going to women)

[–]1Entropy-7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Canada has had child support guidelines for some time and it is generally rather difficult to soak a guy on it. They came in with guideline spousal support a few years ago but they are only recommendations and don't have the force of law as with child support. Judges tended to follow them (at least when I was practicing a few years back) but they would look for exceptions.

Making child support taxable in the payor's hands (generally the father) was a stealth creep in a) child support payments and b) your tax bill. Payor's are usually the higher income earner and thanks the our progressive tax rates, more tax gets paid by the guy before handing over to mom, who gets to keep it tax free.

If we had a flat tax system this would somewhat be moot because the tax man doesn't get a windfall regardless of who is paying the tax; it's just mom who wins out if the guideline rates stay the same but they change the tax policy.

The same thing will probably happen in the USA unless judges reduce alimony awards in light of the new tax provisions. However, I doubt it: what politician doesn't like a good tax grab?

[–]IronMeltsinmyHands -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Where are the Mongolians and how do we get another invasion started?

Want to download the post?
Download PDF Download TXT