[Catspaw]

Arianna's income numbers show that she lives totally off her alimony, and that her 'public persona' is very much a money-losing proposition. Basically, her ex-husband pays to keep Arianna in the public eye. And she's in a sense spending her kid's money to feed her ego.

Alimony is taxable to the recipient. Child support is not. I didn't see alimony listed in the LA Times article as income.

[goldstategop]

It doesn't surprise me. She's basically been an opportunist from day one. Arianna is not so much concerned with principles as with doing whatever it takes to keep her in the headlines.

[WL-law]

I'm reasoning from the evidence not shown. What we see in her numbers is that she loses money, big money, from her career as a 'personality'. Therefore she must subsidize it with her other assets, i.e., her alimony and child-support income.

[Orangedog]

Alimony is taxable to the recipient. Child support is not. I didn't see alimony listed in the LA Times article as income.

Shhhhhh! Don't go giving away one of the dirty little secrets about how lawyers and courts use kids for extortion. The courts have turned from alimony to "child" support so that state and federal revenues aren't decreased and so that it can't be discharged if he goes bankrupt. And whatever you do, don't tell anyone that "child" support money doesn't belong to the child or that there aren't ANY requirements for one penny of that money to be spent on the kids.