If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
hmm depends really, what if the other half was wealthy before, or got wealthy off his own back....
its always a toughie though, especially in terms of who gets what CD
Staying at home, raising children and looking after the home is "tossing about" is it? If that's the case, fancy coming to clean my house from top to bottom and raising my kitten, I'll give you £20, it's easy money innit?
Marriages are about partnership- what's his is hers, and what's hers is his. I find it really quite sad that many posters on this thread- all male, funnily enough- don't grasp this simple point. You cannot divide the labour up as easily as you seem to be making out- it is not as simple as saying he brings home the bacon, therefore she doesn't contribute anything to the relationship. The children don't raise themselves and the house doesn't maintain itself, and it is very hard to go out and earn money without a stable home life behind you. It certainly makes it easier.
I find it telling that all the people who are against the woman getting a fair settlement are young men who quite clearly have no experience of long-term relationships.
I find it insulting to claim that the person who stays at home isn't working. I've been both the main breadwinner and the stay-at-home partner, and its fair to say that both roles are as important and as difficult as each other.
I find it bewildering that someone is angered that a rich man might have to part with some of his wealth after EIGHTEEN YEARS of marriage, and then seriously suggests that the taxpayers should fund this rich man's divorce settlement for him.
I find it distressing that someone feels that its acceptable to dump your wife of eighteen years for a younger model, and then make her live on £42 a week when you earn that in an hour. I'm not sure how that's fair, given that marriage is about a fair division of labour- both financial and emotional- but perhaps the person suggesting it as a great idea can enlighten me.
Perhaps this poster can also enlighten me as to why raising your husband's children isn't a significant contribution to a marriage? I suspect that the people saying this are the sort of children who sit on the sofa munching crisps while mummy runs herself into the ground clearing their muck away after them, mind.
Basically I actually find it amazing that women have the rights they do when supposedly enlightened people are advocating dumping women on benefits after raising children for two decades simply because its not "fair" for one half of a partnership to give one half of the partnership's assets to the other partner when it all comes crashing down.
I'd love to see how someone can justify it not being "fair" to split the assets 50/50. I'd love to see how someone can justify how letting one person keep it all is "fair".
What about if he was rich already and she was not, does she deserve his money from before the marriage?
It has nothing to do with people been against women getting 50% it is about been in favour of having FAIR settlements! and often 50% is not fair.
I agree with Kermy.
i havent argued that myself, and i wouldnt say raising a child isnt hard labour, it bloody well is imo from talking to my mates with kids. But not everthing in life is financially rewarded, im not saying she should get nothing, im saying the working ex-hubby/wife should help the person get back on their feet instead of giving them an indefinetly future MASSIVE wage for not being there
i going into work in a area that doesnt pay much cause i enjoy it, but in 15 years time i said 'nah i dont like this i want to be financially compensated for those earnings i could of made' i'd get "it was your choice"
i'm fidning it hard to put my point across here so i hope you get my drift, and no i dont know how you'd do it technically
i think 50/50 of marital assets aquired during the marriage when you divorce, plus extra for raising kids etc but not paying money to the person for rest of your life as ray parlour suffered (and as my uncle suffered in having to pay for his daughter despite not being allowed to see her for years on end, so much so he doesn't see her as his daughter, but as his ex-wives kid, and he found out he'd probably have to pay for her still after)
pre-nups are the way
I think it's pretty clear that EVERYONE knows the decisions were wrong.
er, excuse me, are you trying to speak for me there? Let me remind you that you don't!
Honestly, yeah, your right!
Vacinations are for idiots. Only idiots would still go somewhere if they thought theym ight get a disease. :rolleyes:
A vacation v. a marriage, ah I see- you think of a marriage as 'give it a go and see if it works out' and I see a marriage as 'I know that we should be married', otherwise I'd go for a different option like cohabiting or similar.
But I agree with you. If you start a marriage with the assumption that at some point in the future you will split and need to divide the assets, then you shouldn't be getting married. It obviously isn't intended as a commitment.
As for pre-nups, as long as they state that the assets will be divided 50:50 then I don't have a problem. If one party is conned, whilst blinded by love, to sign away their rights to the fruits of the marriage then they are a bad thing.
My bad.
I apologize.
I think it's clear (to me) that most people I know agree that the decision is wrong (women and men alike).
Yes, if a marriage goes south, if someone has (and i remind you it doesn't have to be a woman) given up their careers to bring up the kids etc, than they should be taken care of (re-embersed or compensated, those are cruel words).
However, £250,000 a year for the rest of her life?
£5,000,000
Who are these women? Primeministers? CEO's?
One of them has a job, yeah, and she was still awarded money?
Furthermore, in today's world you have to be a realist if you wanna get somewhere and a prenup is nothing more than an insurance policy!!
With the current divorce rate, how can you not go into a marriage with a little reminder in the back of your head...!
Hell...!!
er whoops- no wonder I couldn't work out how he was making a comparison between the two
Yeah, as far as I'm aware they aren't in this country. However, if one is agreed anyway it can sometimes, potentially have an effect on court proceedings and any decision - without actually obliging anyone to do anything, pay anything... Of course, I'm sure that's not the general rule, just in exceptional cases etc.
Kermit, I don't usually go in for daft Americanisms but your post deserves a big, fat WORD :thumb:
Looking after kids is a fucking big job, though.
Housework isn't, anyway, cleaners are cheap
£250,000 for 5 years is a heap load, but since he earns a lot I think she's entitled to it for helping his earning power.
HOWEVER £250,000 for life is ridiculous in my eyes. If he lives for another 40 years, he'll still be paying out then! She's set up for life now, she could happily get away without lifting a finger now.
I read somewhere that the average 'housewife' does less housework now than in the 1950s where they did about 12 hours a week or something. And so, let the flaming begin :cool:
Seriously, ask your Mum how much time she spends.
Leaving aside the fact that I think they are...
No one here has been saying women are the saviours of the universe; only trying to get across the often ignored and disputed point that the unpaid, often unseen work the other partner (still often the woman) does in a caretaking role is as important and as worthy of renumeration as any "job" that involves wage slips and fax machines.
Even I do more than 12 hours of housework a week...
No? Whyever not? She's having to sell her home to pay for him, when he contributed nothing to those assets!
£40,000 a week? £2,000,000 a year?
Who are these men? Brain surgeons? Rocket scientists?
No, they're just be has-been alcoholic footballers.
Kermit, if it was £250k for 5 years, ok. But I cant see why the courts have basically said he should support her for the rest of her life, i.e. indefinate payments. I mean, sure, she's used to having a nice lifestyle, has grown accustomed to not worrying about money. But he's probably accustomed to having a nice tidy house, having all the nannying looked after (I presume thats what she's done for him?) and yet, the court wont order her to go clean his house every sunday for the rest of her life, so why should he continue to have to pay for every year for the rest of his life?
I agree with your argument that women do do a lot that isn't measured financially, but I dont think its a fair deal really, because she's obviously over the moon she's set up for life and he's feeling shit cos he's got nothing to show for it. If she was looking after the kids, then theres more of an argument there, as thats a burden she's continuing to help him with (it sounds awful calling kids a burden), but she's not as far as I can see.
I just dont think its balanced or fair or proportionate.
Given the facts freely available in the press, I don't think Miller was decided accurately. But I'll also bet my bottom dollar that there's more to it than is in the papers.
I don't think there's anything wrong with splitting matrimonial assets 50/50 in many divorce cases, to be quite honest. But each case should be decided on its merits, as it is now, because someone after 10 minutes of marriage shouldn't get half of everything, obviously.
Point is that marriages are about partnership though, and the energy put into marriage can't be and shouldn't be decided using P60s.
You really don't have a clue about the real world do you! I agree that 250K a year for life is a piss take, but 12 hours a week give me a break?
My girlfriend spends hours and hours each day sorting our house/clothes/food out when I'm working AND bringing up our son which can be a fucking nightmare! If I broke up with her I wouldn't begrudge her a fair slice, as long as she hadn't been a cheating.
being a house wife or husband is hard work but it isnt an excuse for what was done in court recently
Serious marriages involve a 50:50 division of labour and its spoils. A divorce in a serious marriage should surely mean a 50:50 division of assets.