Originally posted by Eladarthere is no clear percentage, but it is a fact that it happens.
What percentage of divorces involve a gold digger?
If you are afraid someone is going to take your money, don't get married.
you know, it isn't as simple as that. I believe the people involved should keep what they had in the first place, they don't have to slit everything in half unless they both agree with it.
Originally posted by EladarEveryone has a totally unique situation, that we don't have the view to pass judgement on.
What percentage of divorces involve a gold digger?
If you are afraid someone is going to take your money, don't get married.
But I totally agree with Eladar, if you have no faith in the beginning, don't count on anything changing down the road. It's not something a person does on a whim.
Originally posted by generalissimoI believe it is as simple as that. But if you want a pre-nup saying that you get to keep your stuff and she gets to keep her stuff, go for it. It's your marriage and your divorce.
there is no clear percentage, but it is a fact that it happens.
you know, it isn't as simple as that. I believe the people involved should keep what they had in the first place, they don't have to slit everything in half unless they both agree with it.
Nothing is perfect, but I think the suggestions that I've made are better than what we have at the moment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alimony#Alimony_Reform_in_the_U.S.A.
Alimony is considered a controversial area of the law due to the lack of an accepted legal theory for why a spouse should continue to support their former partner after the marriage has ended.[4] The fairness of permanent alimony in America has been questioned and the rise of an alimony reform movement has been documented in several recent articles in the The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Boston Globe, ABC News,and the Huffington Post and on National Public Radio.[29][30][31][32][33] Alimony is considered one of the greatest sources of litigation in family law cases.[4][8] Eighty percent of divorce cases involve a request for modification of alimony.[34] The unpredictability of alimony awards makes settlement of this issue difficult and erodes the credibility of the judicial system.[35] Divorce law in the U.S. was based on English Common Law, at a time when a woman gave up her personal property rights on marriage. Upon separation from marriage, the husband retained the right to the wife's property, but, in exchange, had an ongoing responsibility to support the wife after dissolution of the marriage.[3][4][9] Alimony continued after Married Women’s Property Acts (1848), permitted divorced women to regain the property they owned before marriage, and disputed the notion that the support after divorce should not be necessary.[4]
Alimony critics state that permanent alimony was originally conceived at a time (17th Century England) when the role of both men and women in the family and in the workforce was much different than today.[9] Legal experts and legislators question whether the laws governing alimony should be re-written to align better with the modern roles of men and women when so many women now work outside the home and earn good salaries.[36][30] It is argued that permanent or life time alimony awards no longer reflect the reality of modern marriage and socio-economic trends.[34] Some states (eg. Florida, Texas, Maine) are moving away from permanent alimony awards that are intended to maintain a spouses' standard of living enjoyed during the marriage and are moving towards durational or rehabilitative alimony.[30][37] In other states, like Massachusetts, alimony is usually awarded for life.[10]. Others argue that unlike the old concept of divorce "a mensa a thoro" (where the couple did not actually divorce, but lived apart and the husband continue to support the "wife"😉, divorce in modern society should represent a "clean break" where each party starts a new life (including remarriage) and does everything possible to become self-supporting.[38][39] Some have likened alimony to welfare, and argued that it is awarded in order to save public expense, and that the state should provide support to needy former spouses .[34]
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI completely disagree. Married couples invest jointly in the present earnings and future earnings potential (human capital) of the partner on the labor market. I see no reason why both should not benefit from the returns. It may be easier for some to recognize this when the partner at home supported their spouse through school or stopped accumulating valuable human capital in the labor market to rear children.
I think that if there are no children in the picture, there is absolutely no reason for any financial compensation under any circumstance.
Originally posted by EladarYeah . . . it's just that easy. 🙄
The one wanting the divorce is damaging the one who does not. One can't get around the fact that divorce brings damage.
I'd say that if there is a divorce without children, each person should simply go his or her seperate way, no financial links. Property split in half.
If there are children, then each has a chance to claim the child. If one doesn' ...[text shortened]... nds today, divorce definitely favors women. Men are still viewed as a woman's meal ticket.
Originally posted by telerionRidiculous. Academic achievement does not depend on being with a spouse. Maybe financially one can support the other, but finances should never be a barrier for getting an education in the first place.
I completely disagree. Married couples invest jointly in the earnings and future earnings potential (human capital) of the partner on the labor market. I see no reason why both should not benefit from the returns. It may be easier for some to recognize this when the partner at home supported their spouse through school or stopped accumulating valuable human capital in the labor market to rear children.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWatch what you call ridiculous. You sound fatuous.
Ridiculous. Academic achievement does not depend on being with a spouse. Maybe financially one can support the other, but finances should never be a barrier for getting an education in the first place.
It doesn't matter if there was a financial barrier or not. The point is that both invested in the human capital of one spouse, therefore both are entitled to some fraction of the returns. Even for a non-economist, I always thought you had enough sense to understand this basic concept.
Originally posted by telerionWhat I'm saying is that this "investment" should not be possible in the first place, which makes the whole point moot.
Watch what you call ridiculous. You sound fatuous.
It doesn't matter if there was a financial barrier or not. The point is that both invested in the human capital of one spouse, therefore both are entitled to some fraction of the returns. Even for a non-economist, I always thought you had enough sense to understand this basic concept.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI'll have to reread your posts. I didn't pick this up the first time.
What I'm saying is that this "investment" should not be possible in the first place, which makes the whole point moot.
Edit: Okay, done. I still don't see it. I'm talking about investment along more than just a pecuniary dimension. It can be an investment of time, an implicit investment through forgone wages and human capital accumulation, or even just emotional investment. I don't see why the partner involved in home production is not entitled to some fraction of the returns from helping the other one focus on developing their labor market potential.
Edit2: I should add that I'm not making any statements about how large a fraction the home partner should be entitled to. I think that should be a functions, perhaps a very complicated one, of the market partners wealth and human capital at the time of marriage, the rate at which the that partners earnings grew over period of marriage, and the total length of the marriage. There are almost certainly some other reasonable arguments to the function, but they aren't coming to me at the moment.
Originally posted by telerionYou can get an education just fine without support from anyone (as long as you can pay for it). Really.
I'll have to reread your posts. I didn't pick this up the first time.
Edit: Okay, done. I still don't see it. I'm talking about investment along more than just a pecuniary dimension. It can be an investment of time, an implicit investment through forgone wages and human capital accumulation, or even just emotional investment. I don't see why the pa ...[text shortened]... of the returns from helping the other one focus on developing their labor market potential.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraNo kidding. It is immaterial whether one can get an education (or develop a career since my arguments includes this dimension as well). The point is that if the married couple made an agreement where one partner would stay at home and let the other one work (or accumulate education), then both parties have made an investment into the future earnings of the working partner. Both should be entitled to their fair share* of the returns from this.
You can get an education just fine without support from anyone (as long as you can pay for it). Really.
* - As I mentioned before one's fair share could be a rather complicated function, but we have actuaries for this sort of thing.
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 28919
Originally posted by zeeblebotAfter my brother claimed it should cost 50 cents to get a divorce and 500 hundred dollars to get married his lawyer laughed and said, "If that happens I'll have to go into the marriage business!"
i can imagine divorce is a big moneymaker for the legal profession, and as they are the ones in control, the situation is not likely to change too much.