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

[KarenMarie]

Sampson... you misunderstand what i typed.....

I do beleive that if the woman stayed home for decades... took care of the home and raised the family, and had no serious expectation of earning a good living... the husband should make sure that she has a comfotable life, unless she remarries. but we are not talking about remarrying... we are talking about earnings.

Once the children are grown and gone... the woman is what.. middle aged? what she gonna do for a living? work in wal-mart? by the time she goes to school and gets a degree or certifications she is still too old to be hired. there is not a huge demand for middle aged women just entering the workforce. if the ex-husband has a lor of money... you think it is right that he leads a good life and she ekes out a living?... sorry that is not right.

i never said 1/2 of his money. never said it.

i think that things need to be fair.

and if the situation were reversed, i would feel the same. i think that if the man stayed home... he should have as good a life as the woman in the event of a split. but again... we are talking about decade long marriages where one party is not capable of earning enough to pay for more than a studio and live hand to mouth. if the marriage ended with both of them comfortable, then this does not apply.

the premise of my statement was *IF* one party... in this example the woman.... did not have any expectation of earning a decent living. it does not apply to if she could. reading comprehension is your friend, hun.

i am a firm believe in equality and do think that the man usually gets screwed in divorce, especially if children are involved.

 

[Nebor]

I will say that that's a pretty brilliant proposal from the lawyer. Imagine how much that will increase revenues for lawyers.

 

[KarenMarie]

Originally posted by: shortylickens

Originally posted by: SampSon
Women want to be equal only when it benefits them most.

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.

I agree with this 100%.

Women used to hold typical jobs and were expected to give them up when they married.

During the sexual revolution... women were brainwashed into believing that just because they had a family did not mean they could not have a career and just because they had a career did not mean they could not have a family. The outcome of this is that women are over worked, underpaid and MTV is raising their children.

Men have been undercut in the work force which meant that it became harder and harder for them to earn enough to support their families. Now more households than not need to be two both parents working in order to make ends meet.

and to make up the disparity in salaries... there was a push to promote woman and offer them child care and maternity leave at the expense of every one else.

imho... it was an experiment that is failing.

 

[AznAnarchy99]

isnt this called spousal support?

 

[Fenixgoon]

after the reading the article, i feel i can make a concise version of it (at least in title):

"how to fvck men over and squeeze the most money out of your divorce"

 

[montanafan]

SampSon and KarenMarie, I don't see how you can try to associate this proposal with women who believe in equal rights in the work place. It has absolutely nothing to do with them, in fact it's just the opposite. This proposal is for the women who did not take advantage of what equal rights laws affored them. This is for the woman who went the traditional route, either the "no need to get an education cause my husband will be the bread winner" , or the "I have an education but I want to be the traditional stay at home mom so I'm not going to work or just work part time, it's not like I'm going to need a full-time career".

This would not apply to women who took advantage of the changes equal rights laws afforded them and got a good education and got a career for themselves. Don't go blaming this on them, it's the opposite.

 

[SampSon]

Originally posted by: KarenMarie
Sampson... you misunderstand what i typed.....

I do beleive that if the woman stayed home for decades... took care of the home and raised the family, and had no serious expectation of earning a good living... the husband should make sure that she has a comfotable life, unless she remarries. but we are not talking about remarrying... we are talking about earnings.

Once the children are grown and gone... the woman is what.. middle aged? what she gonna do for a living? work in wal-mart? by the time she goes to school and gets a degree or certifications she is still too old to be hired. there is not a huge demand for middle aged women just entering the workforce. if the ex-husband has a lor of money... you think it is right that he leads a good life and she ekes out a living?... sorry that is not right.

i never said 1/2 of his money. never said it.

i think that things need to be fair.

and if the situation were reversed, i would feel the same. i think that if the man stayed home... he should have as good a life as the woman in the event of a split. but again... we are talking about decade long marriages where one party is not capable of earning enough to pay for more than a studio and live hand to mouth. if the marriage ended with both of them comfortable, then this does not apply.

the premise of my statement was *IF* one party... in this example the woman.... did not have any expectation of earning a decent living. it does not apply to if she could. reading comprehension is your friend, hun.

i am a firm believe in equality and do think that the man usually gets screwed in divorce, especially if children are involved.

No I understood you very well, I can read very well, and I disagree. The only situation I can even remotely agree with is if there are dependent children still in the situation. In that case then one side of the couple should help support the lives of their ex and their children until the children are no longer dependent, then all support should be cut, plain and simple. Yes I know you didn't say 50%, but I was using that as an example, reading comprehension and extrapolation is your friend, hun. That's it, cut and dry.

It's a divorce, a lifetime separation, it's not a "I'm not going to live with you or have anything to do with you but you're going to support my life until I can find someone else to support me". No matter if it happens to a man or a women it is unfair to expect the higher earning spouce to freely hand over money in order to support a life they no longer have anything to do with. The vows to cherish and support were broken when the divorce was finalized.

The problem with this situation is that there is the ideal that life should be fair. When this couple decides to break it off, even after many decades of life together, that both of them should life happily-ever-after. I think that is a ridiculous joke of an ideal to even try and uphold. One or both parties decided they wanted a change of life, well part of that change of life is that you no longer have the same lifestyle. When thoes marriage vows are broken, then all bets are off.

What is that woman/man supposed to do? She/he is supposed to do what she needs to make a living. If it requires that she/he works at wal-mart and just ekes out a living than so be it. I see no reason why in the event of a split that both parties should walk away as equals. In the vast majority of cases they didn't walk in as equals. Thoes marriage vows were made for life, if the decision was to break them off after decades of marriage than that's what it should be, a break, back to individualism, regardless if it totally sucks for one party.

The failed reasoning here is that when people split apart they should split apart equal. Well the situation we are talking about one party is made out to be inferior. That is the assumption that is used in order to come to a decision on which party should be responsible for paying a portion of their earnings far beyond the nullification of the marriage.

Sorry I don't agree with this type of "softening the blow" crap for either gender. If they wanted life as normal they would stay married after decades of marriage (yes I understand the extenuating circumstances, but after deacdes of marriage there should be a much higher level of understand of life). The parties should split cleanly in this situation (which they don't even come CLOSE to under current divorce law).

 

[DainBramaged]

Originally posted by: SampSon
If that happened to me, I would quit my job and go on welfare, then that bitch can support me.

I agree. That would be one hell of a reason to go on welfare.

 

[Brutuskend]

That's just fvcking great!

Lawyers. :roll: :disgust:

 

[TheLonelyPhoenix]

In other news, divorce lawyers are scumbags.

 

[Vegitto]

SampSon, I love you.

If you're having a divorce, IMO, you can get back what you came with and get the fsck out. No asskissing, no 'support' and certainly not HALF OF WHAT I MADE WHEN I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW YOU EXISTED.

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: Deslok

Originally posted by: RichardE
Reason # __________ not to get married.

No. Reason Number......................... why there are too many Lawyers.

seriously.

I tear out all the pages containing legal ads in the phone book in protest of frivilous lawsuits.

Usually makes an akward 1/4 inch gap in the pages.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: The Battosai

Originally posted by: Goosemaster
OMFg...that guy needs to get his car and his future earning firebombed IMMEDIATELY:|

:thumbsup:

up to your same crap again. i don't know why you were allowed back. two freakin thumbsup posts one after another in this thread, and then countless single emoticon or "LMAO" posts in other threads is neffing, and tiring to see to say the least.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: mugs
I think there's a word for that... umm... alimony?

i thought the same thing when i read the original post. this is really nothing new.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: shortylickens

Originally posted by: SampSon
Women want to be equal only when it benefits them most.

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.

yeh, women are just so evil.

you could always switch over to men. :laugh:

 

[hypn0tik]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: The Battosai

Originally posted by: Goosemaster
OMFg...that guy needs to get his car and his future earning firebombed IMMEDIATELY:|

:thumbsup:

up to your same crap again. i don't know why you were allowed back. two freakin thumbsup posts one after another in this thread, and then countless single emoticon or "LMAO" posts in other threads is neffing, and tiring to see to say the least.

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: mugs
I think there's a word for that... umm... alimony?

i thought the same thing when i read the original post. this is really nothing new.

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: shortylickens

Originally posted by: SampSon
Women want to be equal only when it benefits them most.

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.

yeh, women are just so evil.

you could always switch over to men. :laugh:

And you felt the need to make 3 posts instead of making all your comments in one. Postcount++

 

[Pacfanweb]

In the case of the middle-aged woman whose kids are grown and gone, but hubby is making good money:

Sorry honey, but if you going to be single, then you need to get a job, even if it's one as a Wal Mart greeter. If you don't make enough money to pay your bills, then you need to get a roommate.

It's that simple. If you were a young girl, and starting at the bottom of the work food chain, you'd be doing the same thing.
Just because you started the process 20 years late doesn't entitle you to any additional benefits.

Get the house? Can't afford it? Sell it.

Sorry, but your husband provided your home and lifestyle...for you AND your kids, for all those years.

If you decide you need to be single again, then you get 1/2 the stuff, 1/2 the equity in the home, and 1/2 the money. Period.

Starting over means just that.....starting over. For both of you.

Remember, you just got 1/2 of your husband's house, 1/2 of his money, 1/2 of his belongings, and 1/2 of his retirement.

He's starting over, too...or at least is set back many years.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: hypn0tik

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: The Battosai

Originally posted by: Goosemaster
OMFg...that guy needs to get his car and his future earning firebombed IMMEDIATELY:|

:thumbsup:

up to your same crap again. i don't know why you were allowed back. two freakin thumbsup posts one after another in this thread, and then countless single emoticon or "LMAO" posts in other threads is neffing, and tiring to see to say the least.

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: mugs
I think there's a word for that... umm... alimony?

i thought the same thing when i read the original post. this is really nothing new.

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: shortylickens

Originally posted by: SampSon
Women want to be equal only when it benefits them most.

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.

yeh, women are just so evil.

you could always switch over to men. :laugh:

And you felt the need to make 3 posts instead of making all your comments in one. Postcount++

i sure as fvck did! i had 3 comments, real posts. there is a difference. :| :| :|

screw that Postcount++ crap too. i have never posted just to raise my postcount. that's freakin ridiculous, and i resent your accusation as such.

btw, it says a lot of your character to stick up for the forum neff like that. kudos.

 

[shortylickens]

Ahhhhhh, but my social/emotional/sexual feelings of the opposite sex are not tied to my professional feelings of the opposite sex.

I wish women could say the same thing.

 

[daniel1113]

Prenup ftw.

 

[brxndxn]

That scares the hell out of me... especially since it seems that most small business contracting companies are putting 51% of the company in the wife's name already in order to qualify for government contracts.

The salaries of entire companies of 50-100 employees hang on to the ties of marraige for the owners. Scary sh1t.

 

[RKS]

Just out of curiosity I wonder how many people who replied in this thread


1. are happily married?

2. have enough natural assests to make it through law school?

FWIW the client usually dictates the tone of a divorce proceeding. I'm sure if couples wanted an amicable seperation the attorney's job would be a lot easier and a little less despised.

Edit: lawyers can't handle family law cases on a contingent basis unless it is the recovery of due child support so any type of claim on future earning would go to the other spouse not the lawyer.

BTW I know a guy who got married and started a family. After a couple of kids he decided he wanted to give med school another shot, more specifically neuro-surgery.

I am not sure but I suspect this is about a 10 year or longer career path. Now that he is actually earning significant income and wants a divorce should the wife be thrown out of the house with the two kids and her years of domestic engineering experience?

 

[waggy]

hmm thats not going to fly.

the women should get alimony (IF she was a stay at home mom) until she either gets re-married or finishes school (yes it should be forced or no alimony). and child-support ONLY if she has the kids full time. if its 50/50 NO childsupport.

 

[jadinolf]

Originally posted by: SampSon
If that happened to me, I would quit my job and go on welfare, then that bitch can support me.

In your dreams.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: jadinolf

Originally posted by: SampSon
If that happened to me, I would quit my job and go on welfare, then that bitch can support me.

In your dreams.

yeap the courts would fine you and maybe arrest you for not complying with the order..