Divorce Payouts: How much is too much?

[Deexter Jorgan]

On a long journey down west London yesterday i was listening to LBC talk radio, many situations in regards to our economy, who is fit to run our country and basic general complaining which is not new for talk radio.

But the subject which caught my attention was the excuse for big divorce settlements, now the fact that the UK uses text book law, which means that if situations change we can consider everything in regards to civil law and stature.

the last couple of years alone there have been huge payouts in London for Divorcee's the most well known was the 25 Million settlement that Heather Mils recieved for only four years marriage to Paul Mccartney, the phone in solicitor stated that the 25 Mil was only 4% of Sir Pauls assets, which is fine and all but did she deserve it?.

The answer i feel is no, she didn't the lawyer attempted to explain that she put her own career on hold to marry Paul and take care of their child, which truthfully there was no evidence of this, from what i understand their child was taken care of by a nanny who was paid to do her job.

the law also states that because she is accustom to a certain way of life, Sir Paul needs to still fund that..

Again i find this ridiculous, it means that she doesn't have to work in her life, has no need to and can eventually milk him even more if she is granted custody of their daughter, which means children are being used as tools to gain more financial income.


Now I have a question for everyone here:

Is the Law wrong?

Should it be changed?

can the other half (not just women) be allowed to take advantage of the law and fleece their partner for all their worth just because they didn't raise the children?

Give examples and use whatever case you feel helps your arguement

 

[blood and thunder]

you can look at it that way tbh, but the law is probably there to help people when they should be given the benefit of the doubt. imagine a normal married couple who survive of the male's wages, while the woman stays at home an raises the kids, does all the housework etc. surely she's contributing to the couple's lives just as much, the fact that she's not making actual money doesn't diminish her role. now say the husband cheats on her and she finds out, and wants a divorce. she should be able to dump that guy without fear of ending up in poverty, no?

 

[Deexter Jorgan]

you can look at it that way tbh, but the law is probably there to help people when they should be given the benefit of the doubt. imagine a normal married couple who survive of the male's wages, while the woman stays at home an raises the kids, does all the housework etc. surely she's contributing to the couple's lives just as much, the fact that she's not making actual money doesn't diminish her role. now say the husband cheats on her and she finds out, and wants a divorce. she should be able to dump that guy without fear of ending up in poverty, no?

But should she be entitled to upto 30% of the husbands assets which has been known in alot of high profile cases?, And didnt the wife want the children also?.

The way these divorcee's are being paid they are making out that they are nannies, and sorry to say this in no form should a mother or father be treated as such, having children is a privlege, not a burden and the way that other halfs are being given luxuries and amounts to help them live their own comfy lifestyle it becomes about the money and no whats best for the children.

 

[blood and thunder]

not really, in my example the only reason the husband could even work that much and earn that amount of money is because his wife was taking care of the kids. 30% sounds pretty reasonable to me tbh, especially if you consider that most of the assets would have been gained after they got married and stuff. once you get married, your assets/who contributed what etc inevitably get intermingled, you're not really living two totally separate lives anymore, and if you are why did you even get married?

 

[Razor]

In some cases, the payout is reasonable. Your generic suburban family comes to mind. They both live to push the best outcome for the family, and they should get an equal cut of the net worth from that period. It doesn't matter if the woman takes care of the children while the husband works a job. She's still working to provide the best outcome for the family as a whole. Also, child support comes into question. The established percentages for child support are legit. Anyone who doesn't pay what the judge deems necessary is shirking their duties as a father, and therefore the lowest of the low in my eyes. You birthed a damn child, pay for it to eat.

However, you get into mirky areas when you transcend to the uber rich categories. Let's take, for instance, Stephen Spielberg. The man goes out and makes a film for a period of time, rakes in money for making the film and any royalties he earned in his contract, and sits at home. His wife does nothing but a few odd things here and there, earning...let's say 1/10th of what he makes. (That's a lot, Spielberg can earn anywhere near 100+ million a year easily.) She doesn't take care of the child to make up for the gap in income. She doesn't care for the house or do anything other than live and the basics of being a wife. What does she earn?

I would say her "established comfort of living" is a bullshit reason for more money. If you want to keep getting 1000 dollar manicures and 5000 dollar dresses, don't divorce your rich husband. Child support, however, is a legit reason for a increase in alimony. The accepted 50/50 cut that states such as California (I think) have doesn't exactly fit here either, because it can't be assumed that the wife did as much work.

My solution? Pool the net worth from the years of marriage and each person takes away exactly what they made from their jobs. It can be in either property or straight monetary compensation. Child support is figured separately from this, considering that child support is paid monthly. Alimony is non-existent, because paying for your wife to continue wasting your money on cars and manicures is pointless and silly.

That is, of course, assuming no prenuptial agreement. If this is the case then follow that to the T. The only question when dealing with such a legal document is custody and child support, which can and should be challenged in family court if the situation warrants such action.

 

[Big J]

The settlement shouldn't entitle the woman to live with working. If she is divorced she should GET A FRICKIN job. The man shouldn't have to support 2 households on his 1 income.

What is completely unfair is the cases where the woman has a kid and it's not the husbands and when they get divorced he has to support the kid anyway. It's not his kid he shouldn't be punished for marrying a woman who had kids or who lied to him about it being his kid.
DNA is a mans best friend and the family courts his worst enemy.

Also, if the couple bought a house together the person getting the house in the divorce should have to pay the morgage.

 

[HBK-aholic]

Can we comment on individual cases? Of course not. Let's say Bill Gates wife spent every second looking after their children so he could go out and become a billionaire, would you say £25Million is too much money then? It all depends on the case therefore no one can really give a view on how much is too much. In general, any money made before the marriage/meeting of the 2 should be exempt, that's really all you can say on the matter. However, the "She was used to living a certain way" argument is stupid, and should NEVER be used. If someone loses a great job and is forced to move into a small council house, do we give them millions then?