Divorce Settlement

[GaryProtein]

To me this is not about an emotional and financial cost benefit analysis of marriage, but basic principles of reasonableness. My wife and I both work and and we jointly raise 2 kids. It so happens my employment is better compensated than what she pull in though the small business she runs. I don't see what that should mean I would be accumulating assets at a faster rate than she while we are married.

In fact, I make about 2 times as much as she, and we save 1/3 of our joint income. In your model, we would both contribute half of joint living expenses out of our personal income, which means she would contribute 100% of her salary, I would chip in 50% of my salary and I would get to keep 100% of the budget surplus. Does not strike me as a very fair way to split the pie.

To me it seems exactly the fair way to divide the pie, (or you could decide some other way to divide the pie like you each put in a certain percentage) which actually doesn't need to be divided unless you decide to split up. As long as everything is fine between you, the disparity doesn't matter. The problem in marriage is the lack of the "buy-out agreement" which is an integral part of any other business contract. Having a very good pre-nup/business contract is critical, even better if one of its requirements is for it to be renewed yearly or at some close interval to reinforce the terms. If you like what you have, you sign on for another year, or 36 months--just like a car lease. When the term is up, if you don't like what you have, you turn it in, and as with the car, it's as if you never met. It's actually much better this way. The couple stays together because they WANT to.

Gary-I don't know what state you live in, but many states have what is called "common law marriage." In other words, if you live together long enough to satisfy the requirements of the state for common law marriage, your live-in woman can take you to the cleaners just the same as if you were married.

Luckily New York does not have common law marriage.

 

[edorr]

To me it seems exactly the fair way to divide the pie, (or you could decide some other way to divide the pie like you each put in a certain percentage) which actually doesn't need to be divided unless you decide to split up. As long as everything is fine between you, the disparity doesn't matter. The problem in marriage is the lack of the "buy-out agreement" which is an integral part of any other business contract. Having a very good pre-nup/business contract is critical, even better if one of its requirements is for it to be renewed yearly or at some close interval to reinforce the terms. If you like what you have, you sign on for another year, or 36 months--just like a car lease. When the term is up, if you don't like what you have, you turn it in, and as with the car, it's as if you never met. It's actually much better this way. The couple stays together because they WANT to.

At this point why bother. Cheaper and lower risk to hire a maid, call girl and nanny for services on an as needed basis. Only problem I can see if with child incubation services, for which no ready market exists. Bummer.

 

[zztop7]

divorce lawyers are the scum of the earth.

Not the ones that draw up your PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT properly & not my divorce lawyer wife [No Offense Taken - I understand & that is why I have a PRENUP.].

 

[edorr]

Not the ones that draw up your PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT properly & not my divorce lawyer wife [No Offense Taken - I understand & that is why I have a PRENUP.].

My wife' net worth is 3 x more than mine, so I don't need a prenup.

 

[GaryProtein]

My wife' net worth is 3 x more than mine, so I don't need a prenup.

. . . except that her money probably gives her access to better lawyers than you do and she could still do her best to wipe you out if that was her desire.

Divorces do that to people.

At this point why bother. Cheaper and lower risk to hire a maid, call girl and nanny for services on an as needed basis. Only problem I can see if with child incubation services, for which no ready market exists. Bummer.

Exactly, why bother. There truly is no reason for marriage. If you care for the person you are with and the feeling is mutual, marriage is completely unnecessary. The governmental decree binding you together isn't necessary.

There are women who are happy to do what's fair. They are just harder to find. Like you said, nannys are available as needed, as far as child incubation services is concerned, if you find a women who wants to have a child with you, the government/paternity laws will certainly see that they are taken care of (usually) with the father's money if the woman doesn't, can't or won't work.

I have said it before, I am a very happy cynic. I am very happy with my life, and I know where not to tread.


I bet audioguy had no idea his funny little story would develop into this!

 

[edorr]

. . . except that she probably has access to better lawyers than you do and could still do her best to wipe you out.

Divorces do that to people.

Good point. With deeper pockets, she can easily outlawyer me. However my only real concern is child custody which cannot be arranged in prenup anyway.

 

[GaryProtein]

Good point. With deeper pockets, she can easily outlawyer me. However my only real concern is child custody which cannot be arranged in prenup anyway.

Like I said, the government will make sure the children get taken care of.

I have had residents of mine marry law students and lawyers, and they get killed in their divorces, which right now is running well over a 75% divorce rate. As much as I warn and berate them about it, not a single one of them ever got a pre-nup. It's hard to believe such intelligent people can be so stupid about that. One more thing that beats them up is that the lawyer spouse gets free representation by their firm while the other spouse pays through the nose.

 

[edorr]

Like I said, the government will make sure the children get taken care of.

Wow. You are either joking, or have serious emotional development issues. No disrespect, but I'm afraid it is the latter.

 

[mbskeam]

Gary-I don't know what state you live in, but many states have what is called "common law marriage." In other words, if you live together long enough to satisfy the requirements of the state for common law marriage, your live-in woman can take you to the cleaners just the same as if you were married.

Meretricious Relationships
applies the rules as if you are married, BUT you can not use any of the standard divorce type laws, at least in WA state
it would have been better if I had been married......


Full Definition of MERETRICIOUS
1
: of or relating to a prostitute : having the nature of prostitution <meretricious relationships>
2
a : tawdrily and falsely attractive <the paradise they found was a piece of meretricious trash — Carolyn See>

Origin of MERETRICIOUS
Latin meretricius, from meretric-, meretrix prostitute, from mer?re to earn — more at merit
First Known Use: 1626


oh the story I could tell you guys.....

number 1 sums it up for me.....LOL

 

[rockitman]

Luckily New York does not have common law marriage.

One of the few good laws in NY.

 

[GaryProtein]

Wow. You are either joking, or have serious emotional development issues. No disrespect, but I'm afraid it is the latter.

I mean the government will take the father's money and give it usually to the mother so the children are taken care of--even if she squanders it and/or only a small fraction of what she is given is needed for their care. See my early post where a friend of mine is paying $48,000 a month for child support.

Please don't try to be a psychologist here. I got screwed once and I will never put myself in a position where it could happen again.

 

[DaveyF]

$48,000 a month!!!!! Somehow, I just don't feel that sorry for the guy....don't know why that is, LOL. I'm certain your friend earns every single penny of that money, NO???
BTW, On this topic, I was talking to a colleague today who had a MUCH sadder story...goes like this: Wife works all her life and is in a good paying job...she makes a six figure salary. Husband doesn't do squat and lays around the house all day. Wife gets laid off and finally manages to get another job making $35K a year. She cannot stomach the lazy bum husband anymore and files for divorce....the divorce judge grants the divorce and awards the husband 1/2 of the earnings of the wife as alimony. Community property state can work both ways.

 

[GaryProtein]

That's why community property sucks. The lazy husband should be thrown out on his ass. It's one thing if there is lots of money coming in the neither spouse cares about one being lazy, but when times are bad and he still sits around, he should be thrown out of the house. Married or not, he has no right to what she earned. What the lazy bum gets from his wife should be solely at her pleasure.

 

[audioguy]

I lost a lot of money through divorce (multiple times) but it sure didn't keep me from finding a grand slam winner. And lest we forget, if you got screwed by an ex spouse, remember who selected her in the first place!!!

 

[GaryProtein]

. . . And lest we forget, if you got screwed by an ex spouse, remember who selected her in the first place!!!

True, but the punishments are unreasonable.

The problem with marriage is the lack of the buy-out agreement where we have governmental intrusion in our lives. Ideally, a marriage would be something you do at your pleasure or peril with no guarantees and especially without governmental controls. Like playing at a blackjack table, a marriage should be as easy to exit as it is to enter. I really don't care if people marry for love, convenience, have a same sex marriage, opposite sex marriage, multiple wives, multiple husbands or how many people want to be considered married to each other--2, 3, 4, 5, more(??) in a group marriage. It isn't any of my business, and it shouldn't be the business of any governmental agency either.

 

[edorr]

True, but the punishments are unreasonable.

The problem with marriage is the lack of the buy-out agreement where we have governmental intrusion in our lives. Ideally, a marriage would be something you do at your pleasure or peril with no guarantees and especially without governmental controls. Like playing at a blackjack table, a marriage should be as easy to exit as it is to enter. I really don't care if people marry for love, convenience, have a same sex marriage, opposite sex marriage, multiple wives, multiple husbands or how many people want to be considered married to each other--2, 3, 4, 5, more(??) in a group marriage. It isn't any of my business, and it shouldn't be the business of any governmental agency either.

To my knowledge, there is no marriage mandate. You can achieve EXACTLY what you are describing by not getting married. I did it for 38 years. Worked like a charm. Multiple long term (2 - 5 years) relationships that eventually ended, some periods of having multiple girlfriends, and no divorces to report.

 

[GaryProtein]

to my knowledge, there is no marriage mandate. you can achieve exactly what you are describing by not getting married. i did it for 38 years. Worked like a charm. Multiple long term (2 - 5 years) relationships that eventually ended, some periods of having multiple girlfriends, and no divorces to report.

BINGO!

That's exactly my point. No one needs to be married. It's unfortunate there are so many caveats to marriage.

 

[BobM]

That's why community property sucks. The lazy husband should be thrown out on his ass. It's one thing if there is lots of money coming in the neither spouse cares about one being lazy, but when times are bad and he still sits around, he should be thrown out of the house. Married or not, he has no right to what she earned. What the lazy bum gets from his wife should be solely at her pleasure.

Lets flip it around for a second. How would you distinguish a lazy husband/wife from a stay at home husband/wife who takes care of the house and kids? Just exactly where do you draw the line, and how in the world do you define it. I think that's the problematic part legally, one person's claim of "lazy" vs. another's claim of "providing service to the household that doesn't generate income".

 

[GaryProtein]

Lets flip it around for a second. How would you distinguish a lazy husband/wife from a stay at home husband/wife who takes care of the house and kids? Just exactly where do you draw the line, and how in the world do you define it. I think that's the problematic part legally, one person's claim of "lazy" vs. another's claim of "providing service to the household that doesn't generate income".

That's a slippery slope and why I do not recommend doing that if there is ANY concern about staying together--and of course there never is a concern until it's too late

You can't have everything. You have to compromise on something. I just prefer not to compromise on things where I can lose my shirt. It is far better to work and pay for services than to think you are getting something that you aren't paying for.