Woggle Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 Some will never understand why men fear being taken to the cleaners so much. The end of a relationship should not mean financial doom. 2
elaine567 Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 And I think if a woman expectsto get half a man's assets in a divorce because it's their money, then she should shoulder half the debt because it's their debt. How can it be that one person shoulders all the debt and one walks away with the cash/assets, I am not being deliberately obtuse, I would just like an explanation of how that can occur? 1
lollipopspot Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 (edited) Some will never understand why men fear being taken to the cleaners so much. The end of a relationship should not mean financial doom. It shouldn't mean financial doom. But it more often does for women: "Men become richer after divorce: Male incomes rise by a third after a split, while women are worse off and can struggle for years. Divorce makes men - and particularly fathers - significantly richer. When a father separates from the mother of his children, according to new research, his available income increases by around one third. Women, in contrast, suffer severe financial penalties. Regardless of whether she has children, the average woman's income falls by more than a fifth and remains low for many years." http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/jan/25/divorce-women-research I think it's a sense of entitlement. These men expect to walk away with exactly the same lifestyle they had in the marriage, despite having agreed to have dependents during the marriage. Edited May 27, 2015 by lollipopspot 3
autumnnight Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 It shouldn't mean financial doom. But it more often does for women: "Men become richer after divorce: Male incomes rise by a third after a split, while women are worse off and can struggle for years. Divorce makes men - and particularly fathers - significantly richer. When a father separates from the mother of his children, according to new research, his available income increases by around one third. Women, in contrast, suffer severe financial penalties. Regardless of whether she has children, the average woman's income falls by more than a fifth and remains low for many years." Men become richer after divorce | Life and style | The Guardian I think it's a sense of entitlement. These men expect to walk away with exactly the same lifestyle they had in the marriage, despite having agreed to have dependents during the marriage. From what country is The Guardian?
Haydn Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 From what country is The Guardian? UK. Autumnnight. My paper.... 1
xxoo Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 And I think if a woman expectsto get half a man's assets in a divorce because it's their money, then she should shoulder half the debt because it's their debt. They aren't "his" assets. They are marital assets. If her income is 25k post divorce, and his is 100k (because he's been in the workforce for 20 years, and she's been out), should she really take half the debt? The former SAHM needs a huge hand up just to support herself and her kids. This is the risk of being, or being married to, a SAHM. When I was a SAHM, there were no assets to split, lol! If we'd separated, I just would've been screwed. It was an act of faith to trust my husband and stay home with the kids those years. And I'm still way behind in the work world (but I've got an amazing family ) 1
jay1983 Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 Damn, I ain't never gettin' married! This thread a damn train wreck.lol 1
autumnnight Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 UK. Autumnnight. My paper.... I thought so. In other words, it may not perfectly apply to the US And I think if a woman expectsto get half a man's assets in a divorce because it's their money, then she should shoulder half the debt because it's their debt. Just in case the plain words were not clear. 1
123321 Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 How can it be that one person shoulders all the debt and one walks away with the cash/assets, I am not being deliberately obtuse, I would just like an explanation of how that can occur? I guess I went for the soap at the wrong moment. Oh well, it was only less than a million USD, so no worries.
xxoo Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 How can it be that one person shoulders all the debt and one walks away with the cash/assets, I am not being deliberately obtuse, I would just like an explanation of how that can occur? I know someone who is going to have this result. She's a woman, btw, married to a woman. The reason is, she's very rich. 1
elaine567 Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 I know someone who is going to have this result. She's a woman, btw, married to a woman. The reason is, she's very rich. OK but why is only one liable for the debts, how does that work?
xxoo Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 OK but why is only one liable for the debts, how does that work? Rich people don't take debt unless it's financially advantageous. So if the house is mortgaged because it makes financial sense to do so, and they'll buy the partner out of the house, any business, etc, keeping the debt. If there is credit card debt because the wealthier partner charged up vacations or whatever, how is the lower income person supposed to assume that debt? They don't have the income to support it, so the creditors probably wouldn't allow the debt to be transferred to their name.
toolforgrowth Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 That's a blanket statement without much meaning without actual numbers, which is why I didn't respond to it before. If you get 50K in debts and 50K in assets, and you haven't worked for 20 years, it doesn't make much sense. The consequences of that decision fall upon the person who chose not to work for 20 years. If you haven't worked and have no marketable job skills as a result, that decision is the responsibility of the individual who made it. The law is gender neutral, although people can't seem to wrap their minds around that. It is designed in part so YOU don't have to pay for some person's spouse who the couple decided didn't need to work for 20 years. True, we are seeing more court cases where SAHD's are being awarded custody, child support, and alimony. They are rarer because dads stay at home less than mothers, but it's still happening. The person who hasn't worked in 20 years needs to attain marketable job skills and reenter tnt work force in order to support themselves, man or woman. People don't think about the consequences of their contracts. It's unfortunate. Agreed. People who don't work for 20 years don't think about the consequences of that decision. People who choose to not support themselves don't deserve a pass any more than those who marry without understanding the implications do. There are consequences for each decision...some good and some bad. Any reasonable person would accept them both. This isn't a gender war issue for me, so I'm not going to take a side on the whole man vs. woman debate going on. 1
toolforgrowth Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 It shouldn't mean financial doom. But it more often does for women: "Men become richer after divorce: Male incomes rise by a third after a split, while women are worse off and can struggle for years. Divorce makes men - and particularly fathers - significantly richer. When a father separates from the mother of his children, according to new research, his available income increases by around one third. Women, in contrast, suffer severe financial penalties. Regardless of whether she has children, the average woman's income falls by more than a fifth and remains low for many years." Men become richer after divorce | Life and style | The Guardian I think it's a sense of entitlement. These men expect to walk away with exactly the same lifestyle they had in the marriage, despite having agreed to have dependents during the marriage. The funny thing is, in the end, this was true for me. Not initially, I was flat broke for two years after my divorce. But I worked hard, developed some new job skills, and got a much higher paying job in a different field. The only reason why I personally fit this theory is because I worked hard to improve my financial position. I can't speak for other men. Although on the flip side, I live far more frugally and have less expenses, even with child support. IMO, the reason why men end up faring better after divorce is two fold: they are more inclined to better their financial position, and they have less overall expenses by not having to contribute towards a larger family unit. I can't speak for women as to why they don't fare as well. There's nothing stopping them from increasing their job marketability and income either, so I am unclear as to their obstacles.
alphamale Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 There's nothing stopping them from increasing their job marketability and income either, so I am unclear as to their obstacles. maybe if you grew a some breasts and a vagina then you would be clearer?
toolforgrowth Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 maybe if you grew a some breasts and a vagina then you would be clearer? If I did that, I don't think I'd ever leave my bedroom... 4
lollipopspot Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 The consequences of that decision fall upon the person who chose not to work for 20 years. If you haven't worked and have no marketable job skills as a result, that decision is the responsibility of the individual who made it. That's where the issue is in understanding contracts. When you marry and support your nonworking spouse for 20 years, it is considered a joint liability in the event of divorce. Understand contracts before you make them. I think that people - male or female - who do not understand the marriage contract and possible ramifications should not get married (or have kids, because they might have to pay for those too). And you are right that as roles have changed, it is not gendered. The law is gender neutral in this regard. 2
BlueIris Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 Damn, I ain't never gettin' married! This thread a damn train wreck.lol Jay… don’t make that decision based upon this thread or any other argument that disasters can happen. Disasters CAN happen and do happen. But of all the disasters that can happen in life, divorce and “losing” money is little stuff. Very little stuff. I bet- I hope- that that no one steering his or her life because of money or fear of losing money ever had a child die, or suffered a debilitating injury or disease- or had someone they loved deeply have any of those things happen. Don’t make decisions concerning love and family and how to live your life because of people who think that losing money is that big a deal. jmo
Got it Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 (edited) The consequences of that decision fall upon the person who chose not to work for 20 years. If you haven't worked and have no marketable job skills as a result, that decision is the responsibility of the individual who made it. True, we are seeing more court cases where SAHD's are being awarded custody, child support, and alimony. They are rarer because dads stay at home less than mothers, but it's still happening. The person who hasn't worked in 20 years needs to attain marketable job skills and reenter tnt work force in order to support themselves, man or woman. Agreed. People who don't work for 20 years don't think about the consequences of that decision. People who choose to not support themselves don't deserve a pass any more than those who marry without understanding the implications do. There are consequences for each decision...some good and some bad. Any reasonable person would accept them both. This isn't a gender war issue for me, so I'm not going to take a side on the whole man vs. woman debate going on. But these decisions are not being made unilaterally. BOTH people are wanting the one person to stay home for whatever reason. So both have to assume the risk of it. It isn't about deserving a pass, it is what both partners decided to do because they wanted that one person home. And how do you fix this? Don't allow a spouse to not work, don't have kids and don't acquire marital debt. Makes divorcing easy. My divorce, we both made six figures, no kids, split the pets, I kept my horses, and we shared a mortgage on a house until the economy turned around it it wasn't under water any longer. And I was the one who put 40K into it to get it ready for sale. Not him. This was our agreement, we both agreed to work and it mitigated the risk. Everyone has power to make decisions for today that lesson the risk for tomorrow. But you don't get to decide today that it would be lovely for your wonderful wife to care for the kids because the idea of a stranger raising them just doesn't sound right and then, 20 years later, want to dig in your heels that she should get support and monies because the dumb b&tch didn't work a day in her life. That is the epitome of hypocritical. And you can protect yourself. Now there is no way to have a SAHS and not pay anything; there are laws against that. But get a prenup going into the marriage if you have assets. You can protect those assets easily. But you can't have your cake and eat it too. You don't get to benefit from having a spouse home, raising the kids, not having to pay childcare, etc. and then cry about alimony and child support. Edited May 27, 2015 by Got it 5
Rejected Rosebud Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 Well good! Then we can finally put all of this inequality nonsense to bed and women's lib is done. "Women's lib"??? Where did this come from??:confused: I mean I don't know why you quoted me to express this belief of yours??? I'm certainly a happy and proud feminist! And I am not as fond of gender based inequality as you seem to be!! I don't see what that has to do with my post though. If women make more than men they well might be required to pay support if their husband stands to lose his lifestyle but I think it's more common for no support to be awarded, of course child support is a completely different matter and if one of the parents has sole responsibility of caring for them OF COURSE they need to receive support themselves!!! And it's reasonable that the primary parent receive primary custody too don't you think??? I mean for the children's sake! :bunny:
123321 Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 If someone got debts with no ability to pay them off - because they haven't been working for 20 years - it wouldn't make much sense. Why is any of this surprising? Why do people enter into one of the biggest decisions of their lives (marriage) without thinking through finances? I can see splitting the assets after the debts are paid. That makes sense. I can't see why she is entitled to my income AFTERWARDS. I really can't see why I get the debt and she gets the almost all assets.
toolforgrowth Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 But these decisions are not being made unilaterally. BOTH people are wanting the one person to stay home for whatever reason. So both have to assume the risk of it. It isn't about deserving a pass, it is what both partners decided to do because they wanted that one person home. And how do you fix this? Don't allow a spouse to not work, don't have kids and don't acquire marital debt. Makes divorcing easy. My divorce, we both made six figures, no kids, split the pets, I kept my horses, and we shared a mortgage on a house until the economy turned around it it wasn't under water any longer. And I was the one who put 40K into it to get it ready for sale. Not him. This was our agreement, we both agreed to work and it mitigated the risk. Everyone has power to make decisions for today that lesson the risk for tomorrow. But you don't get to decide today that it would be lovely for your wonderful wife to care for the kids because the idea of a stranger raising them just doesn't sound right and then, 20 years later, want to dig in your heels that she should get support and monies because the dumb b&tch didn't work a day in her life. That is the epitome of hypocritical. And you can protect yourself. Now there is no way to have a SAHS and not pay anything; there are laws against that. But get a prenup going into the marriage if you have assets. You can protect those assets easily. But you can't have your cake and eat it too. You don't get to benefit from having a spouse home, raising the kids, not having to pay childcare, etc. and then cry about alimony and child support. That's one reason why I'm never marrying again. One can't force their spouse to work if they don't want to, neither can they force them to stay home. Ultimately, the decision is up to the individual. As such, they face the final consequence of said decision. This is not how it currently works legally, but I believe it should. Thus, marriage is not a suitable choice for me. 1
lollipopspot Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 That's one reason why I'm never marrying again. One can't force their spouse to work if they don't want to, neither can they force them to stay home. Ultimately, the decision is up to the individual. As such, they face the final consequence of said decision. You can't force someone to work, but you can choose to not be married to them anymore if they refuse. But I think if someone picks a quality spouse with similar values (whatever those may be) and the communication is good, then it's something that is worked out before 20 years.
123321 Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 That's one reason why I'm never marrying again. One can't force their spouse to work if they don't want to, neither can they force them to stay home. Ultimately, the decision is up to the individual. As such, they face the final consequence of said decision. This is not how it currently works legally, but I believe it should. Thus, marriage is not a suitable choice for me. Exactly. I made enough that we didn't need her income, which honestly (assuming she picked up where she'd already left off) would have barely been noticeable. She was free to do as she wished, and she opted to buy horses and ride them, and do other fun things. 20(ish) years later and it's somehow my fault she's not on a career track. She could have gotten a couple advanced degrees and had a great career in that time. 1
toolforgrowth Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 You can't force someone to work, but you can choose to not be married to them anymore if they refuse. But I think if someone picks a quality spouse with similar values (whatever those may be) and the communication is good, then it's something that is worked out before 20 years. I agree with the spirit of this argument, but life is unpredictable. Practical application of this often yields mixed results. The contract itself is bad, regardless of the integrity of the individual. For me, it's better to forgo the contract all together. You yourself have said one shouldn't marry if they don't like the terms. I completely agree. The personality of the partner is irrelevant to the terms of the default contract.
Recommended Posts