Sorry, am I reading this right?
You think someone should be rewarded for the simple act of *not deliberately thwarting* her husband's career????
Rodgers' wife wants 51 house and half his wages.
- Thread starter Rosco
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
Sorry, am I reading this right?
You think someone should be rewarded for the simple act of *not deliberately thwarting* her husband's career????
It's called marriage. It's an agreed partnership.
That isn't 'deliberately thwarting' his career, it's just being a lazy selfish bitch.
Deliberately thwarting his career would be telling all of the players that he likes to dress up in women's clothing and take it up the arse from a big black strapon while she rode him round the living room singing "Bitch better have my money!"
The point I was making, and the one you're avoiding, because you know you're wrong but can't face the humiliation of backing down now after being so bombastic about it for the last few pages, is that there is a correlation between how much a wife is willing to sacrifice and how successful her husband can be
No there isn't.
Not acting like a total bitch is not a sacrifice - at least not one someone should reasonably be compensated for.
I've already allowed that genuine sacrifices (loss of career etc) should be taken into account.
Okay peter, you keep telling yourself that.
You don't have to be a total bitch or an absolute saint, there are various degrees of in-between. And how settled and comfortable the home life is can have an impact on a person's ability to focus on, and succeed at, their job.
You're saying there should be a flat rate. In your eyes the total bitch deserves to get exactly the same as the dutiful wife
You don't have to be a total bitch or an absolute saint, there are various degrees of in-between. And how settled and comfortable the home life is can have an impact on a person's ability to focus on, and succeed at, their job.
You're saying there should be a flat rate. In your eyes the total bitch deserves to get exactly the same as the dutiful wife
You're right it was quashed. He was initially fined and then the council had to retract it because he hadn't received the summons. It was still a negative headline though (and the house did look like a proper shithole) and he can't seem to go more than a few months before getting another one. Though the one about him shagging a tranny was funny (and false)
Why should the other half be compensated for a 'loss of a career' etc? If they chose to give up work, and stay at home, then that's their call is it not? Why should the wealthier other half have to pay out for a decision the other party made? It's not like they've been imprisoned against their will?
Again, removing kids from any equations, I don't understand how a partner voluntarily giving up work, and living off the other half's wages, should be entitled to any significant chunk of it after they separate. And we all know, that even if the other half is unfaithful, and a complete nightmare from day one, they would still be entitled to a significant financial settlement, purely based on them having a ring on their finger.
Again, removing kids from any equations, I don't understand how a partner voluntarily giving up work, and living off the other half's wages, should be entitled to any significant chunk of it after they separate. And we all know, that even if the other half is unfaithful, and a complete nightmare from day one, they would still be entitled to a significant financial settlement, purely based on them having a ring on their finger.
She'd better not read this thread or you will be (single).
Oh for gods sake Mors! They obviously made that decision together. In that partnership they call marriage.
Ross has it nailed anyway. Yes she should be compensated by an agreed amount to return her to her previous standard of living but perhaps not be entitled to future earning. There will be a cut off.
From what I understand of his argument, he's saying there should be a gross/flat sum calculated on the basis of a number of factors, including the raising of kids, loss of career opportunity etc. and not that there should be a specified flat sum in every case. As opposed to a percentage of the husband's assets.
Which seems to me to be entirely reasonable, and exactly the way the law works around here. I don't know about English law, but if it entitles a spouse to a percentage of the husband's income/assets, it's utterly ridiculous.
Is it not their assets? They split so she's entitled to a share of the income and assets they built together?
If the assets are jointly owned, she has a right to them anyway. If they are her husband's assets acquired independently or from his own inheritance, why should she have a right to a share/percentage in them?
There seems to be less arguments here, and more personal ad hominems against peter from what I can see.
Maintenance law, in my experience, isn't terribly complicated.
In the first place, a spouse (either male or female) has no right to maintenance unless he/she can show that his/her financial capacity isn't enough to support his/her previous level of lifestyle and enough to raise the kids (if he/she has custody).
If he/she can demonstrate that, the courts will determine what a reasonable maintenance is in that context.
But if the sum is calculated based upon a number of factors, then surely that indicates that it is variable, and therefore not a flat rate - as otherwise there would be no need to do any kind of calculation, it's simply a flat rate of X% of the assets.
And if it is to be a flat rate, then that suggests that a wife that did fuck all in terms of contributing towards a stable home life would receive exactly the same amount as one who facilitated her husband's career by mitigating the stresses and strains he might otherwise have to endure. A WAG that went out lunching every day, spent money like it was going out of fashion and was a narcissistic gold-digging whore would be entitled to the same amount as a dutiful wife that did everything she could to support her husband and make his life easier.
Is that less ridiculous than suggesting the principle of "the more you put in, the more you get out"?
BUT YOU CAN'T REMOVE THE 3 FUCKING KIDS FROM THE FUCKING EQUATION BECAUSE THEY ACTUALLY EXIST YOU COMPLETE CRETIN.
This debate is getting lost in semantics I think. Peter's usage of the term 'flat' is a bit of misnomer. I've already explained that I think he meant a gross sum rather than a fixed sum in every case (of course I could be reading him wrong, so I'll just let him explain what 'he' meant).
As for myself, of course I agree that the sum will be variable from case to case. But the factors that make it a variable should be centred around her lack of means, loss of opportunity and burden of raising kids (if it exists) and how to compensate that rather than being centred around the husband's wealth.
- Status
