How To Aquire Veteran's Disability Benefits Without Joining The Military

[vetswife]

It makes about as much sense as having your car taken away from you, and being told you still have to pay a portion of the gas. Someone's riding it, but it's not you...

I understand what you are saying, but I feel that if a spouse (male OR female) has lived with a disabled veteran for a long time (lets put a time limit. . say 10 years, like SSI) then if something happens, and marriage is disolved, then the other spouse should get a portion of the income, regardless of whether they are male or female. For example, the case that started this thread (and I know I said it in a prior post, but it should be reiterated), the spouse lived with the veteran for 24 years, AND was also disabled. The Veteran, I believe, had over 3600 in income per month, and the spouse had 700. So, the judge ordered the veteran to give a SMALL portion of his income to his spouse. This left the vet with 3000 a month and the spouse with less then half of that.

Where is the inequality here? Again, the news story never stated who was at fault, which, to me is a big part of the story. . but here again, what would you have said if it was turned around, and the MAN received the alimony, and the woman was paying? What it still be unequal? The proof of how fair something is is when you turn it around, does it still seem fair?

[rentalguy1]

it would not be fair either way. What's his is his, what's hers is hers. Just living with someone does not qualify you to get a portion of their money when you dissolve the relationship. Under that logic, my parents, former barracks mates, former roomates, and my ex-wife all owe me money...or vice versa. If it was still 1954, and the wife stayed home to cook, clean, and raise the children, then I could see it. But nowadays, the wife no longer stays home, and in most cases, cannot afford to do so. So that puts both parties on an equal playing field. If the husband has to give up a portion of his earnings to the wife, then why should the wife not have to give up a portion of her earnings to the husband at the same time? Why should he be punished for having made greater sacrafices in his life and having a higher earning potential than the spouse. It makes no sense.