For my husband, it was who "needed" what. His ex-wife was a stay-at-home mom. He asked me could he see what my budget was like (I'd been supporting myself for 13 years, was single, etc.) so he'd have a clue what he needed to live on; he'd never lived alone and his ex- had done the bills so he didn't know anything about what expenses would be. He took "enough" and she got the rest.

The alimony he paid his ex- gradually decreased over 15 years and was non-punitive so she could get a job/go to school, whatever she needed and it wouldn't decrease as a result (since she had never worked so needed help/incentives for that). My husband was 42-43 and not at the peak of his earning ability so figured he'd get raises/more income as time went on so he wasn't worried about having to continue to live on only "enough"; the alimony/child support only went down as time went by and she became more self-sufficient. The only "penalty" to the settlement income would be if she remarried.

He kept the "stock"/investment assets and she got the house, bank accounts, the "physical" assets; his name was taken off the credit cards which she kept and he opened new ones in just his name. She kept paying on a life insurance policy on him.