In Nevada I must pay alimony, If I get remarried and lost my job would my wife to be income be consider for the alimony payment?

The short answer is that your new spouse's income probably will not be relevant to your alimony obligation. In Rodgers v. Rodgers, 110 Nev. 1370, 887 P.2d 269 (1994), the Nevada Supreme Court rejected the Father's contention that NRS 125B.070 grants district courts the discretion to consider a new spouse's income in setting child support, but held that "under appropriate circumstances, a noncustodial parent's community property interest may be taken into account pursuant to NRS 125B.080."
Specifically, the definition of "gross monthly income" in NRS 125B.070(1)(a) includes "income from any source" for a wage-earner, or the gross income from any source of a self-employed person." The Court recited several rules of statutory construction.
The Court termed 125B.070 "hardly a model of clarity." The Court reaffirmed its holding in Lewis v. Hicks, 108 Nev. 1107, 843 P.2d 828 (1992) that "gross monthly income" does not include a parent's community property interest in a new spouse's income.
However, the Court went on to note that under NRS 125B.080, the lower courts can, upon making appropriate findings of fact, deviate from the statutory schedule, and noted that NRS 125B.080(9)(1) lists "the relative income of both parents" as a factor. In prior cases, the Court construed this provision as including relative standards of living and financial circumstances, and reiterated its holding in Barbagallo v. Barbagallo, 105 Nev. 546, 779 P.2d 532 (1989) that "[w]hat really matters in these cases is whether the children are being taken care of as well as possible under the financial circumstances in which the two parents find themselves. Greater weight, then, must be given to the standard of living and circumstances of each parent, their earning capacities, and the `relative financial means of parents' than to any of the other factors." From dicta in Barbagallo, Lewis, and Herz v. Gabler-Herz, 107 Nev. 117, 808 P.2d 1 (1991), the Court inferred that "considerations such as standard of living and financial means may be intimately connected to community income," and noted that under the community property scheme, a spouse has a present, vested one-half interest in the other spouse's earnings under NRS 123.130, 123.220, and 123.225, and under California Family Code sects. 751, 760.
Turning to tax law, the Court noted that the IRS considers half the income and expenses of the community to belong to each spouse, and that such a spousal share may be liable for that spouse's premarital debts under NRS 123.050 and Cal. Fam. Code sect. 910. Thus, while spousal income is not part of gross income, the remarried parent's imputed community property right to share in income does count for comparing "relative income" of the two parents. The case can be reviewed on our Published Works page, http://www.willicklawgroup.com/published_works. Further information about alimony can be reviewed on our spousal support/alimony page, at http://www.willicklawgroup.com/spousal_support_....