On 12/17/2012 9:26 PM, Ignoramus31296 wrote:
On 2012-12-18, GOP_Decline_and_Fall wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 22:09:57 -0600, Ignoramus31296
wrote:

On 2012-12-18, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 21:48:42 -0600, the renowned Ignoramus31296
wrote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...196_story.html

``Nancy Lanza was a divorcee who got a good settlement from Adam???s
father, Peter, a General Electric executive who earned $445,000 in
2009. She didn???t work and was scheduled to get nearly $300,000 in
alimony this year. She could have afforded good care for Adam if he
needed it.''

Am I the only person for whom the above makes no sense? How can the
ex-wife get alimony that was 67% of his pretax income? What is wrong
with that picture?

i

http://www.lohud.com/article/2012121...nclick_check=1

"Beginning on Jan. 1, 2009, Peter Lanza?s annual alimony payments
started at $180,000, but grew yearly to $289,800 this year. Next year
they were to increase to $292,800 and to $295,800 in 2013." Plus the
house. Plus a bunch of other stuff. The alimony ends on her death.

Maybe if she'd had to go out and work...

What I am saying is that I do not understand how such an alimony is
possible. Either Peter Lanza had a lot of unreported income, or else
someone is lying about the amount of her alimony.

It is beyond strange.

What exactly could happen between Peter and his ex-wife to make him
agree to such enormous alimony?


As a tax avoidance specialist for GE I think it's safe enough to
assume he knew what he was doing.

Exactly my point, what was really going on, the ex-husband is not a
dumbo.

I'm beginning to doubt you have any ability to learn things for yourself.


--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs.