Rodgers' wife wants 51 house and half his wages.

[tony]

But as much as you dislike the notion it is actually simple to place a value on such a contribution *to a career*.

Childcare = the price of a good nanny and/or nursery
Other sundry assistance = the salary of a domestic servant


I'm not saying it's a romantic or attractive reality. But I do think it is the unfortunate truth.

Mmmm nannie say 20years at 10k a year plus food and lodging 2k ( dont want to feed them too much ) = 240k
24 hrs domestic servants 24 /7 minimum wage say 2 x 12k a year x 24 years = 575k

Total of 815k

Fuck me thats an awful lot of houses in South Shields - I reckon he should probably just give her the keys to the lot!

Blimey 815k - don't tell my missus ffs

 

[peterhague]

I did.

You acknowledged looking after the kids was important.

In your very next post you then said you didn't see how the "normal role of a wife" could materially influence the relationship.

This, despite the fact that FFF had just clearly told you that his role in the relationship allowed his wife to pursue career and therefore promotions and increased earning potential because FFF and his partner made the decision (I presume) that the best thing for their families future was for her to pursue her career and him to forgo his and concentrate on looking after the family.

Now you tell me - if FFF had refused to look after the family and preferred to concentrate on his own career - would his partner have been able to focus on her career.

You're quite clearly wrong on this.

For the billionth fucking time I ACKNOWLEDGE THE CONTRIBUTION OF RAISING CHILDREN AND THAT "COMPENSATION" IS APPROPRIATE!!!!

 

[peterhague]

Mmmm nannie say 20years at 10k a year plus food and lodging 2k ( dont want to feed them too much ) = 240k
24 hrs domestic servants 24 /7 minimum wage say 2 x 12k a year x 24 years = 575k

Total of 815k

Fuck me thats an awful lot of houses in South Shields - I reckon he should probably just give her the keys to the lot!

If that's what reasonable calculations say I'd have no problem with that.

 

[Frogfish]

But as much as you dislike the notion it is actually simple to place a value on such a contribution *to a career*.

Childcare = the price of a good nanny and/or nursery
Other sundry assistance = the salary of a domestic servant

I'm not saying it's a romantic or attractive reality. But I do think it is the unfortunate truth.

That's bordering on the ridiculous. There is a massive difference between a nanny and parenting.

 

[tomasjj]

But as much as you dislike the notion it is actually simple to place a value on such a contribution *to a career*.



Childcare = the price of a good nanny and/or nursery

Other sundry assistance = the salary of a domestic servant





I'm not saying it's a romantic or attractive reality. But I do think it is the unfortunate truth.

There is a holism in viewing a relationship that you still insist on splitting up, viewing it in a solely economic, reductionist, quantitative perspective on value.
That holism is probably a factor behind the parties usually ending up with equal shares.

Go figure!

 

[StevieM]

But as much as you dislike the notion it is actually simple to place a value on such a contribution *to a career*.

Childcare = the price of a good nanny and/or nursery
Other sundry assistance = the salary of a domestic servant


I'm not saying it's a romantic or attractive reality. But I do think it is the unfortunate truth.

Ok Peter, (and I'm not being patronising), I'll take the view you aren't trolling and put my personal experiences in.

I've never been married, don't have kids and in my last relationship, which was a good 6 or 7 years - that's when my career took off and so did hers.

I would absolutely day that the support, emotionally or otherwise, hard to quantify, from my partner allowed me to be successful in what i do.

I'm sure she would also tell you that she wouldn't have the career she has without the support I gave her.

So we both materially influenced each other's lives and earning potential.

 

[peterhague]

That's bordering on the ridiculous. There is a massive difference between a nanny and parenting.

Not in terms of an impact to a person's career, though, which is what I thought we were assessing.

 

[tomasjj]

Shit, you are an accountant aren't you?!

Could have saved us some time that info...

 

[peterhague]

Ok Peter, (and I'm not being patronising), I'll take the view you aren't trolling and put my personal experiences in.

I've never been married, don't have kids and in my last relationship, which was a good 6 or 7 years - that's when my career took off and so did hers.

I would absolutely day that the support, emotionally or otherwise, hard to quantify, from my partner allowed me to be successful in what i do.

I'm sure she would also tell you that she wouldn't have the career she has without the support I gave her.

So we both materially influenced each other's lives and earning potential.

I don't deny the possibility or even the likelihood. I just don't know how you'd go about measuring such a thing.

That's before getting to my objection that it shouldn't be compensated for because I think it's immoral.

 

[StevieM]

For the billionth fucking time I ACKNOWLEDGE THE CONTRIBUTION OF RAISING CHILDREN AND THAT "COMPENSATION" IS APPROPRIATE!!!!

No Peter, you haven't. You really haven't.

Because you diminish the role to just that of child care or nanny like its some sort of contract or job.

The role of the partner & spouse is not just about raising children and domestic chores.

 

[Mors]

No.

But thinking that a spouse can't have a positive or "material" impact is borderline retarded.

It's crystal clear that what most people are saying is that IN A RELATIONSHIP sometimes one partner will take a roll managing the family and helping create an environment where the other spouse can achieve maximum earning potential because you'd BE RAISING A FAMILY AS WELL AS PURSUING A CAREER.

Every married couple do not have children, this may come as a bit of a surprise to you. This is just to let you know that we can discus divorce without presuming or mentioning that all partners are at home caring for a family.
In a divorce, it seems that by default, evidence does not need to be provided to prove that the partner has had a profound effect on the other halves career, word of mouth will suffice, in order to obtain a extortionate settlement. If you can prove it, you obviously get significantly more.

I can tell you now, from experience, not just thumb in the air, that I've been privy to several divorces where where children have and have not been involved. And the non-working partner has done incredibly well and in two of the cases where children were not involved retained the house and it's entire equity. And by their own admittance reporting 'we've not been close for years, the majority of the marriage, we've lived separate lives'. So the law it seems couldn't give a monkey's if you've got children and stayed at home, or exactly how much 'emotional support' you've given - you'll get a considerable payout just for having a ring on your finger. The partner could be a saint or the devil incarnate - they pretty much get paid the same.

 

[StevieM]

I don't deny the possibility or even the likelihood. I just don't know how you'd go about measuring such a thing.

That's before getting to my objection that it shouldn't be compensated for because I think it's immoral.

I don't know how you quantify it either - which is why, unless 2 people come to an agreement, they each get to make their case to an independent external body rather than a rudimentary flat rate with add ons based on certain circumstances.

I've had long term relationships end badly in past where we've had to go through the financials (more about debt than assets).

Anyway.... I guess I just don't get your position at all.

You're not going to change it - and I won't change mine.... so

Agree to disagree, I guess.

 

[Woland]

I got no prob with the splitting up of whatever is there, but spousal maintenance to keep someone in the life they're accustomed to seems a bit off. Especially when the one paying for it often ends up skint.

 

[tombrown]

God knows why we ever gave them the vote, eh Peter

 

[peterhague]

No Peter, you haven't. You really haven't.

Because you diminish the role to just that of child care or nanny like its some sort of contract or job.

The role of the partner & spouse is not just about raising children and domestic chores.

No I don't.

Yes, I know.

 

[peterhague]

God knows why we ever gave them the vote, eh Peter

Hey guys! We can't defeat Peter using facts and logic, it's so unfair. Let's sling a few grossly unfair personal insults at him instead!!!

 

[tony]

No I don't.

Yes, I know.

You have equated less than the minimum wage as adequate recompense for raising a family. As someone who has been a househusband for two days a week whilst my wife worked I can tell you that you are undervaluing the work involved massively. Apart from being the most important job anyone ever does it is exhausting and unrelenting. My hat goes off to all mothers particularly those who have to work as well.

 

[peterhague]

You have equated less than the minimum wage as adequate recompense for raising a family. As someone who has been a househusband for two days a week whilst my wife worked I can tell you that you are undervaluing the work involved massively. Apart from being the most important job anyone ever does it is exhausting and unrelenting. My hat goes off to all mothers particularly those who have to work as well.

That is irrelevant. You are letting your heart rule your head.

This is a discussion of what part of a man's income should be due to someone in return for taking care of that burden. I'm saying it should be the amount he'd have to pay to a third party to provide equivalent relief.

 

[tony]

If that's what reasonable calculations say I'd have no problem with that.

Have you factored in sexual favours into the equation say 3 times a week times 24 years x lets say £50 ( on average ) there's another 187k

 

[Woland]

What about all the shags and that? And whores charge extra to stay over. It's gonna be worse than just settling I reckon.

 

[Athens]

She should get 51 houses for the fact she obviously let Brendan name the kids.

 

[peterhague]

Have you factored in sexual favours into the equation say 3 times a week times 24 years x lets say £50 ( on average ) there's another 187k

Take it up with Stevie et al. They're the ones who seem so keen to put a price on all this relationship stuff.

 

[Athens]

I think what we can all learn from this is that Peter is cheap, while the rest of you lot are sentimental fools.

 

[cloggypop]

That is irrelevant. You are letting your heart rule your head.

This is a discussion of what part of a man's income should be due to someone in return for taking care of that burden. I'm saying it should be the amount he'd have to pay to a third party to provide equivalent relief.

Are we factoring in sex workers as well now?

Edit: I probably should have finished reading first.

 

[Woland]

When you lay it out like that, if you said to some bird, I've got this job going, it involves sucking and fucking me, looking after my property business and bringing up my kids, how much do you want? I reckon 'half' sounds about fair.

 

[tomasjj]

Take it up with Stevie et al. They're the ones who seem so keen to put a price on all this relationship stuff.

Actually, that is what you yourself are doing.

 

[Jack D Rips]

I think what he's saying is that she should be compensated on the basis of the wages of a maid and nanny.

But as much as you dislike the notion it is actually simple to place a value on such a contribution *to a career*.

Childcare = the price of a good nanny and/or nursery
Other sundry assistance = the salary of a domestic servant


I'm not saying it's a romantic or attractive reality. But I do think it is the unfortunate truth.

I was right in my thinking

 

[ILD]

That is irrelevant. You are letting your heart rule your head.

This is a discussion of what part of a man's income should be due to someone in return for taking care of that burden. I'm saying it should be the amount he'd have to pay to a third party to provide equivalent relief.

Burden is an odd word to use.

 

[StevieM]

No I don't.

Yes, I know.

"Childcare = the price of a good nanny and/or nursery
Other sundry assistance = the salary of a domestic servant"

You're tying yourself up in knots you can't unravel.

 

[Woland]

Burden is an odd word to use.

Well she is a fucking beast