divorce lawyers now looking to get a cut from husbands future earnings

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
OS

OS

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
15,581
1
76
""Why? The courts are trying to split marital property 50-50, yet they traditionally overlook one major asset of a marriage: the husband's career."

Wilson, who specializes in divorce issues and has written several books on the subject, asserts that in traditional marriages, the wife is not getting a big enough piece of her husband's future earnings potential.

"Property is divided just once, but career assets continue to produce income regularly for years," she says."


article

apparently, half of the guy's stuff is still not enough.

 
S

SampSon

Diamond Member
Jan 3, 2006
7,160
1
0
If that happened to me, I would quit my job and go on welfare, then that bitch can support me.
 
G

Goosemaster

Lifer
Apr 10, 2001
48,775
3
81
seriously, I cannot see how this is logical.

the marriage didn't work, fine they get 50 of shared assets.


the mans degree, his career, the career that helped bread on the table is not somethign you fvk with.

she ate the damn food along with his sorry ass,,,

she ate the earning.


bitch needs to up an lay the fvk off the family jewls
 
K

KarenMarie

Elite Member
Sep 20, 2003
14,372
6
81
I think that if the marriage lasted for decades and the wife was a stay at home mom or part time worker... and they divorce without her having any real expectation of earning a high salary... and if the husband does well in his career then i think it is a good thing.

but under any other circumstances... i believe that each side of the marriage should walk away with ONLY what they brought in and 1/2 of what was earned/appreciated while they were married.

but i would also re-vamp the entire child support system, too.
 
E

Eeezee

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2005
9,922
0
76
NO, that is just fvcked up. I already believe that it's messed up for the wife to get 50% of the husband's things, even stuff that he owned before meeting her.
 
T

The Batt?sai

Diamond Member
Jan 18, 2005
5,170
1
0
Originally posted by: Eeezee
NO, that is just fvcked up. I already believe that it's messed up for the wife to get 50% of the husband's things, even stuff that he owned before meeting her.
Click to expand...

husband = PWNED
 
G

Goosemaster

Lifer
Apr 10, 2001
48,775
3
81
Originally posted by: buck
Originally posted by: Deslok
Originally posted by: RichardE
Reason # __________ not to get married.
Click to expand...


No. Reason Number......................... why there are too many BAD Lawyers.
Click to expand...

Fixed that.
Click to expand...

an influx of talent, in my opinion, to the point of excess, breeds dilution of said talent, or at least in the bottom pool wher they are fitting over crumbs and ole' ladies and such....
 
shortylickens

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,082
136
I hate the judges and politicians more.

Because they make and enforce laws that let lawyers get away with that shiat.
 
OS

OS

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
15,581
1
76
Originally posted by: mugs
I think there's a word for that... umm... alimony?
Click to expand...

I think the fear is if it becomes common practice to index alimony against the guys growing salary, etc.

 
S

SampSon

Diamond Member
Jan 3, 2006
7,160
1
0
Originally posted by: KarenMarie
I think that if the marriage lasted for decades and the wife was a stay at home mom or part time worker... and they divorce without her having any real expectation of earning a high salary... and if the husband does well in his career then i think it is a good thing.

but under any other circumstances... i believe that each side of the marriage should walk away with ONLY what they brought in and 1/2 of what was earned/appreciated while they were married.

but i would also re-vamp the entire child support system, too.
Click to expand...
So on top of alimony, the wife should expect to get at least half of the husbands earnings for the rest of his/her life? You have got to be kidding me.
I could go on for a while about this, but I guess I'll just make a few points and end it.

If they have been married for decades then most likely their children are grown and no longer dependent, this really does away with the vast majority of the money a divorced woman needs to live. If you have no dependent children then you should not be entitled to any of the ex-husbands future earnings. Sorry hun, time to go out and get yourself a job and support yourself, time to join the rest of the world. Yea it may suck, but guess what, life sucks deal with it. If you want to continue to not work and live the lifestyle you have, then don't get divorced.

The entire point of a divorce is to separate you life from that individual and get on with the rest of your life. Why should the man be responsible for continueing to give half of his earnings to a women he has nothing to do with for the rest of his life? If they want to be separated then that's what they should be, buh bye, have a good life.

Each divorce needs to be examined very closely on a case by case basis, because this type of ruling could set a very unfair precedent. As it is divorce laws, hell most laws for that matter, are ridiculously biased in favor of women. This would make it even worse.

The #1 point in this type of ruling will be that a women gave up her career advancement in order to stay at home and raise children. Well sad as that may be it was also 50% her choice, no one forced her hand into doing that. If you reversed this situation where the man gave up his professional life to stay at home I am willing to bet this same precedent of taking future earnings would never be set the same way.

Women want to be equal only when it benefits them most.
 
shortylickens

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,082
136
Originally posted by: SampSon
Women want to be equal only when it benefits them most.
Click to expand...
Oh, yes.
We've gone over this many times on Anandtech.

They wanted real equality back in the 70's and they got a taste of it. Then they realized equality between men and women wasnt so hot.
All through the 80's and 90's they've been fighting to get the benefits of both, and lose the liabilities of each. And we let them do it.
Cant say I blame them. If someone (e.g. the Courts) wanted to hand me all kinds of goodies and I didnt have to work for it, I'd probably take advantage.

 
Cuda1447

Cuda1447

Lifer
Jul 26, 2002
11,757
0
71
Originally posted by: SampSon
Originally posted by: KarenMarie
I think that if the marriage lasted for decades and the wife was a stay at home mom or part time worker... and they divorce without her having any real expectation of earning a high salary... and if the husband does well in his career then i think it is a good thing.

but under any other circumstances... i believe that each side of the marriage should walk away with ONLY what they brought in and 1/2 of what was earned/appreciated while they were married.

but i would also re-vamp the entire child support system, too.
Click to expand...
So on top of alimony, the wife should expect to get at least half of the husbands earnings for the rest of his/her life? You have got to be kidding me.
I could go on for a while about this, but I guess I'll just make a few points and end it.

If they have been married for decades then most likely their children are grown and no longer dependent, this really does away with the vast majority of the money a divorced woman needs to live. If you have no dependent children then you should not be entitled to any of the ex-husbands future earnings. Sorry hun, time to go out and get yourself a job and support yourself, time to join the rest of the world. Yea it may suck, but guess what, life sucks deal with it. If you want to continue to not work and live the lifestyle you have, then don't get divorced.

The entire point of a divorce is to separate you life from that individual and get on with the rest of your life. Why should the man be responsible for continueing to give half of his earnings to a women he has nothing to do with for the rest of his life? If they want to be separated then that's what they should be, buh bye, have a good life.

Each divorce needs to be examined very closely on a case by case basis, because this type of ruling could set a very unfair precedent. As it is divorce laws, hell most laws for that matter, are ridiculously biased in favor of women. This would make it even worse.

The #1 point in this type of ruling will be that a women gave up her career advancement in order to stay at home and raise children. Well sad as that may be it was also 50% her choice, no one forced her hand into doing that. If you reversed this situation where the man gave up his professional life to stay at home I am willing to bet this same precedent of taking future earnings would never be set the same way.

Women want to be equal only when it benefits them most.
Click to expand...




QFT X 10000000000000000000000
 
Cuda1447

Cuda1447

Lifer
Jul 26, 2002
11,757
0
71
Originally posted by: shortylickens
Originally posted by: SampSon
Women want to be equal only when it benefits them most.
Click to expand...
Oh, yes.
We've gone over this many times on Anandtech.

They wanted real equality back in the 70's and they got a taste of it. Then they realized equality between men and women wasnt so hot.
All through the 80's and 90's they've been fighting to get the benefits of both, and lose the liabilities of each. And we let them do it.
Cant say I blame them. If someone (e.g. the Courts) wanted to hand me all kinds of goodies and I didnt have to work for it, I'd probably take advantage.
Click to expand...

Care to elaborate?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom