[cardguy]

Imagine a regular guy who marries a regular woman - and she stays home raising kids - while the guy goes out and sets up a business which he eventually sells for a billion dollars.

Should the woman be entitled to half of it should they get divorced after 20 years of marriage? Or in an ideal world - do you think it would be fairer if she was only awarded a fraction of that?

I'm just curious. Since some guys (who are red pill - such as Adam Carolla) think the woman deserves half. Whereas others feel a chick shouldn't get half a billion just for sitting at home, being fed and sheltered whilst they raised kids.

I am curious as to what you guys think? I can't decide. I know the law will never change either way - but I am curious as to what those on the forum think is a fair amount? I remember Lionel Richie being annoyed he had to pay his ex-wife half his assets - since he said she had zero input everytime he wrote a hit song.

[bacon]

Marriage is a business arrangement and has always been set up that way. Alimony had noble intentions because it was initally seen as a way to financially protect women who once they had gotten older from being in poverty if their husband left them for a younger woman. But today things have changed:

women file for 70% of divorces
people can divorce for anything usually frivolous reasons as opposed to infidelity
alimony/spousal support is now just a way to help a woman get her "pound of flesh". Consider Demi Moore (net worth 100milion plus) trying to get alimony from Ashton Kutcher. She is a perfect example of a woman not financially needing alimony but demanding/suing for it anyways.

So now women who might be financially ok with a stable job are able to get alimony from their ex husband who might make just a little more money than her. And she could have been the one to initiate the divorce from him for frivolous reasons.

[j r]

When people get married, they form a household. I'm fine with everything earned during the marriage getting split. If you invested in Facebook at the beginning, then you are entitled to your share once that claim vests. It doesn't matter if you were in the office every day writing code or you were just an investor who did nothing else. That's the nature of the contract. Sometimes it's better to be lucky than to be good.

It's the entitlement to money earned before and after the marriage that is questionable.

[Peregrine]

In an ideal world, if the man wants a divorce even though she has always been a great wife (doesn't incessantly nag, sex is regular, cooks, cleans, raises kids, etc), she should get half. If she wants a divorce, she shouldn't get shit all unless the man was beating her or otherwise abusive (as in, actually abusive).

Of course, none of the above could be sorted out in our current judicial system.

[J DOE]

(01-14-2014 11:54 AM)bacon Wrote:  

Marriage is a business arrangement and has always been set up that way. Alimony had noble intentions because it was initally seen as a way to financially protect women who once they had gotten older from being in poverty if their husband left them for a younger woman. But today things have changed:

women file for 70% of divorces
people can divorce for anything usually frivolous reasons as opposed to infidelity
alimony/spousal support is now just a way to help a woman get her "pound of flesh". Consider Demi Moore (net worth 100milion plus) trying to get alimony from Ashton Kutcher. She is a perfect example of a woman not financially needing alimony but demanding/suing for it anyways.

So now women who might be financially ok with a stable job are able to get alimony from their ex husband who might make just a little more money than her. And she could have been the one to initiate the divorce from him for frivolous reasons.

It's worth mentioning that Demi Moore got something like $90 million dollars when she divorced Bruce Willis.

I personally don't think the wife should get a sizable portion at all. In the hypothetical situation I think she should get enough to live a decent upper middle class life on, but I don't think anyone should be able to get rich through divorce. Realistically rich women are doing the same job that ALL mothers do, they just get to do it on a higher budget and in style.

Have you ever seen this Chris Rock clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8TqhBIEbWA
Looking at it like this, I definitely understand OJ. I never looked at it that way. The idea that a woman should be able to "continue to live the life she's grown accustomed to" is ridiculous. Not even pussy payments balance out some of these alimony settlements.

[Peregrine]

(01-14-2014 12:10 PM)J DOE Wrote:  

(01-14-2014 11:54 AM)bacon Wrote:  

Marriage is a business arrangement and has always been set up that way. Alimony had noble intentions because it was initally seen as a way to financially protect women who once they had gotten older from being in poverty if their husband left them for a younger woman. But today things have changed:

women file for 70% of divorces
people can divorce for anything usually frivolous reasons as opposed to infidelity
alimony/spousal support is now just a way to help a woman get her "pound of flesh". Consider Demi Moore (net worth 100milion plus) trying to get alimony from Ashton Kutcher. She is a perfect example of a woman not financially needing alimony but demanding/suing for it anyways.

So now women who might be financially ok with a stable job are able to get alimony from their ex husband who might make just a little more money than her. And she could have been the one to initiate the divorce from him for frivolous reasons.

It's worth mentioning that Demi Moore got something like $90 million dollars when she divorced Bruce Willis.

I personally don't think the wife should get a sizable portion at all. In the hypothetical situation I think she should get enough to live a decent upper middle class life on, but I don't think anyone should be able to get rich through divorce. Realistically rich women are doing the same job that ALL mothers do, they just get to do it on a higher budget and in style.

Have you ever seen this Chris Rock clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8TqhBIEbWA
Looking at it like this, I definitely understand OJ. I never looked at it that way. The idea that a woman should be able to "continue to live the life she's grown accustomed to" is ridiculous. Not even pussy payments balance out some of these alimony settlements.

Marrying a woman is not like hiring a personal chef/nanny/escort/therapist/etc. What you're doing is entering into a joint partnership with 50/50 equity. So what if you had the business idea and did all of the coding and all she did was marketing? You agreed to the equity split when you married her. If you don't like that, don't get married or sign a prenup (assume for the sake of argument that prenups are ironclad agreements which can't be struck down by a judge).

[SheriffBart]

I think a fraction of assets earned during marriage and a fraction of income for a prescribed period (say 5 years or 50% of the length of the marriage, whichever is less) is perfectly fine. The problem we have is that one half is the wrong fucking fraction. Also, kids should essentially cost the same. Therefore, child support should be fixed. This lifestyle nonsense needs to go.

Actually, you could do away with child support by just making custody 50/50 by default.

And lastly, prenups need to be bulletproof. Prenups should be standard anyway. To deny and fail to plan for the possibility of divorce in this age is just retarded.

[cardguy]

If it was the law that you had to have a pre-nup, that would help eliminate any ill feeling that results from one partner surprising the other with a request for a pre-nup.

[Damascus]

I'm against alimony however any assets/wealth acquired during the marriage should be split equally regardless of the situation. Logically it makes no sense that one spouse recieves less than the other when it comes to assets acquired during the marriage. The problem with divorce and issues associated with this particular life event is that logic goes out of the window. I've seen men and women act like complete fools during a divorce. Make it simple instead of coming up with dumb ass scenarios. Regardless of the circumstances, everything in the marriage is split, no alimony. No child support if both parents have equal custody. If there is a custodial parent, put a cap on child support REGARDLESS of income. Remove any financial incentive to screw over the other party.

[Celtic]

This is all a bunch of theory though isn't it? talk all you want about how alimony should be distibuted- the way it is distributed, it'a pure reward for the lower earning married partner, if she was cheating or caused the divorce.

So to avoid alimony, don't marry, or if you do have to marry, use a prenup to limit alimony to the extent possible. What would be the moral or fair assignment of alimony has not a thing to do with reality.

[Collide]

(01-14-2014 05:21 PM)SheriffBart Wrote:  

And lastly, prenups need to be bulletproof.

Are any prenups bulletproof? All prenups can be overruled by a judge.

[samsamsam]

prenup
postnup
irrevocable trust

[T and A Man]

(01-14-2014 12:22 PM)Peregrine Wrote:  

Marrying a woman is not like hiring a personal chef/nanny/escort/therapist/etc. What you're doing is entering into a joint partnership with 50/50 equity.

Erhh equity yes.

50/50. How can you qualify that?

I understand the notion that a man is enabled to 'prosper' if a woman stays at home and looks after all domestic affairs, pointing to a man being better to focus on a single pursuit.

However, who says it is 50-50?

Or what if a woman reneges on doing 'her role', the man has to dedicate time to doing shit like cleaning.. or raising kids.. and still succeeds i his business anyway?

or what about the other side of the 'commitment' ledger? Woman propose men commit to monogamy, but what about a commitment to frugal living, not spending money on superfluous shit. Is every woman commiting to that?

In a divorce, settlements to the lower monetary contributing spouse should be capped, say <a multiple of> years average wage per year of marriage.

Alimony is a crock of shit, if a man makes a lot of money, then that is a benefit of being his spouse. A woman should forfeit that benefit if she no longer wants to be his spouse.

[Mage]

I believe these approximate rules would be just :

A woman should not be allowed to divorce at all, except real, serious and above all PROVEN cases of physical violence.

If a man divorces her - she should get an amount of income that is based on the amount of minimum wage in the country multiplied by mans income level, if she was a stay at home mother. The man should pay her a full minimum wage's amount if he earns at least three minimum wages. But she should receive no more then 10x minimum wage even if he is a billionaire. If she had a full time carrier, for longer then a year in the last 5 year period before divorce, that allowed her to earn her own minimal wage, she should get that subtracted from her alimony amount. If they had no children she should get nothing since marriage without children is not marriage at all.

As for assets - a woman should get the assets that she had when she entered the marriage if these assets still exist. Nothing more.

Children should stay with father by default but if parents make an agreement they can stay with mother while the father works or at any time they agree upon. In this case the father should pay to her like to a nanny, plus the alimony as described above.

[Architekt]

(01-14-2014 10:27 PM)T and A Man Wrote:  

Alimony is a crock of shit, if a man makes a lot of money, then that is a benefit of being his spouse. A woman should forfeit that benefit if she no longer wants to be his spouse.

This pretty much sums it up