What’s a fair divorce settlement? Poll discussion

Former_MSE_Lawrence

Poll between 12-18 Feb 2007: What’s a fair divorce settlement?

With a number of high-profile cases flooding through the courts, here’s a sample scenario, designed to raise a number of issues…

The Scenario: Janet and John have been married six years and had two children. Sadly they no longer get on and so agree to a divorce - no third parties are involved. They met the year after John sold his business for £10 million (Janet had limited assets), and have since lived together without either working. John has agreed to provide maintenance and costs for the children already.

Which of the following is closest to your idea of a fair settlement from John to Janet?

Please indicate your gender when voting (to see if that makes a difference):

A. I’m a WOMAN. Janet should get nothing - 7% (623 votes)
B.I’m a WOMAN. Janet should get 10% - 9% (834 votes)
C.I’m a WOMAN. Janet should get 20% - 9% (770 votes)
D.I’m a WOMAN. Janet should get 30% - 8% (697 votes)
E.I’m a WOMAN. Janet should get 40% - 2% (213 votes)
F.I’m a WOMAN. Janet should get 50% - 9% (831 votes)
G.I’m a WOMAN. Janet should get more than 50% - 1% (105 votes)
H.I’m a MAN. Janet should get nothing - 13% (1174 votes)
I.I’m a MAN. Janet should get 10% - 15% (1356 votes)
J.I’m a MAN. Janet should get 20% - 12% (1018 votes)
K.I’m a MAN. Janet should get 30% - 6% (557 votes)
L.I’m a MAN. Janet should get 40% - 2% (143 votes)
M.I’m a MAN. Janet should get 50% - 5% (456 votes)
N.I’m a MAN. Janet should get more than 50% - 0% (29 votes)

This vote has now ended, but you can still click reply to discuss below.

[threadbanner]box[/threadbanner]

killer133_2

Hi

this is interesting, but I wonder if the responses would differ if the genders were the other way around? If Janet had made the millions, sold the business, married John and had two children, how would the voting go then?

Personally, whichever way around it is, I don't think they should get more than 10% - from the scenario description they've done almost nothing to contribute to the success of the business.

Any other ideas anyone?

Killer

funkey_monkey

Killer, I agree with you. The fact that swung it for me was the declaration that he had already agreed to provide maintenance and costs for the chikdren.

Even 10% is £1million - much more than she probably would earn so that is a signifiant amount for her. Plus as you said, she had NO CONTRIBUTION to his wealth so therefore, for her to get anything should be seen as generous.

And yes, if it was the other way around I would have voted that the man get 10% also and no more.

It might have been a more interesting debate if she had contributed...

srvr

Hi all

I see this disturbing popular result:

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][/FONT]F. I’m a WOMAN. Janet should get 50%
11% (19 votes)
and those who didn't select this still expected quite a lot of coin.

Why are woman surprised that men these days are scared of loosing their shirt to some gold digging.

I went with 10% as that's a huge pile of money anyway plus Janet gets costs for the kids and maintenance. Janet has not done badly considering she hasn't contributed to the wealth at all.

Before you say, if it was reversed, or even if i was Janet (as a man) i would be embarrassed to ask for more than 10% in these circumstances.

srvr

I was just planning to meet the girl of my dreams fall in love and live hapily ever after.

Now i think ill just qualify that at little:

1) Meet girl of my dreams
2) Ensure her wage is near my own or greater
3) Establish she has assets equal to my own or greater
4) Establish that her potential inheritance is equal to my own or greater
5) Live Happily Ever after.

Are women really telling us men folk that they are all Heather Mills McCartney in disguise? If you are, expect us to keep running scared.

Gemmzie

I voted for [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]"D. I’m a WOMAN. Janet should get 30%" -[/FONT] purely because she has the children. My perfect answer was that the children should get 30% - which should be for the children.[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][/FONT]

BuddyBonthenet

I voted F. I’m a WOMAN. Janet should get 50%.

I'm married and don't have children (through choice) and I think the woman should be able to bring up their children in the style they have been brought up in so far. Why should she look like the poor relation to their children as she brings them up alone? They should both be able to start their new lives with a level playing field financially.

srvr

John has agreed to provide maintenance and costs for the children already.

So the children are already covered and Janet gets a further bung on top. So how much she should get of the lump sum is purely for her.

The children cant be used as an argument in this scenario.

LuciferTDark

I personally wouldn't give her more than 10%, it's not like she helped him to make the money, just helped to spend it.

johncolescarr

I voted for 10%, since £1m is likely to cover loss of earnings for 6 years at least. I disagree with the comment that 30% is fair because of the kids since a generous maintenance alllowance from a £10million fortune is likely to keep the kids in the luxury they are accoustomed to anyway. I don't think that the kids should be getting a Rolls Royce each to drive them to school. If the father decides to help them later in life, to set up their own businesses for example, then this would happen whether they were together or not.

jamtart6

if the maintenance thing hadn't been sorted out, I'd have said that whoever kept the children should have had a chunk of the fortune (either the bloke with 100%) or mother with 10%...1 million quid is enough to survive on until she gets a job...many people do it for much much much less!! I vote janet gets zilch, zip, nada!

If they had both contributed to the business then halvey halveys!