14 replies to this topic

[Thinker]

Should a man give 50% of his wealth when he divorces his wife. Should it be the same with woman or just men. This question raises contreversy on the whole woman man thing. Woman have a brain and can work just like we do and so can men so why dont women give 50%. Me I think woman shouldnt have to during divorce only men. You guys had no children both of you worked same hours at restruants. Both of you got home fought ate a snack then slept. That was your weekday schedule. Your weekend would be trying to talk things out but would end in an arguement and both of you put the same amount of time into cooking cleaning working and your realtionship. But failed and got divorced.

Whats your opinion?

Vote in poll.

Edited by Thinker, 15 June 2007 - 19:47.

[Dauth]

No to both, mainly becuase the question does not say who provided most to the marriage. You should get out the percentage you put in. This does not just means money, but providing for offspiring etc.

[Thinker]

There i edit it

[Dauth]

In that situation, you get out what you put in, but thats unlikely. and thus falls under what i said in my above post.

[Whitey]

Blah, both should get 50%. Then people marry to be in love and not to get money out of it.

For all of those that are listening, keep this word in mind: PRENUP!, unless of course, you are the poor one. But if you are successful and you are afraid, well then yeah.

[Warbz]

whoever paid for the house etc, should get the house. end of.

for children there is CSA.

one shouldnt have to give the other ANYTHING at the end of the marriage.

[Cryptkeeper]

the percentage what ever should be a discussion between the couple they need to work it out them selves if they can't even do that they shouldn't have married in the first place and they should be giving a time limit after that time limit what ever can't compromised or agreed on is neither of theres and gos the highest bidder were the money from that goes equally between them.

[CodeCat]

Solo Wing, on 15 Jun 2007, 23:16, said:

Blah, both should get 50%. Then people marry to be in love and not to get money out of it.

But that's exactly what will happen. Anyone who's poorer than the other will get money out of it.

And also, what about same-sex relationships? I don't see those mentioned...

[Thinker]

Never thought of that codecat. well thats a tough one im confused on that.

Edited by Thinker, 15 June 2007 - 23:45.

[Whitey]

I did: Fight to the death!

On a more serious note: Man A gets 50% and Man B gets 50% and if Man X has more money, then Man X was stupid enough to not get a prenup. Therefore, lesson learned.

[General]

If one should give wealth , it must be man side . But its totally must be decision between the couples , some of them may want and some of them may not .

[spiderspag]

I say that a pre-nup should be automatic and compulsory at the start of every marriage. In this day and age, relationships are simply too easy to get into and therefore people are not as invested in them. It should be made clear that in the case of divorce, people are only going to go away with what's theirs or what has been given to them out of the goodness of the others heart.

[CoLT]

Yeah with the number of broken marriages I see nowadays, I figure a pre-nup should be automatically done at the beginning of their marriage and then it's settled in the, sometimes highly likely, event that they divorce.

[Commander Abs]

I've never liked pre-nups because they make marriage seem more like a business deal.

In a *simple* divorce where there are only two people, it should be a 50/50 split,,,, pre-nups aside that's the unfortunate risk you take getting into marriage with a poorer (or richer) person. Throw a child into the equation and you enter a whole new world Jane Doe divorces her husband because he's in the military and never around to raise their child. The courts agree and give Jane custody of the child, as well as a majority of the husband's assets because she cares for the child, plus the husband is required to pay child support.

Arguably, because the man recieves neither child nor wealth, so he's well and truly recieved less than his fair share. On a personal basis I would give all 100% of my wealth to my ex wife for my child, so it's always a curly one as to how the courts percieve exactly what 50% is, as a child, in the grand scheme of things, is seen as a financial burden as opposed to an emotional treasure.

[spiderspag]

errr... no because as its your money you should have the say over how the money for your child gets spent, not the chick you divorced. i see too many men getting screwed over by the 50/50 deal. I could accept that marriages shouldn't start out as a business deal if they didn't always end up like one.