What’s a fair divorce settlement? Poll discussion

funkey_monkey

Gemmzie wrote: »

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.

But it already states that he is providing for them. He has an obligation to provide for their upbringing which he is doing. He has no obligation to provide for them a lump sum - if he wants to do that it will be volantary or as part of his will.

Why should they get a lump sum? Where is this stipulated?

funkey_monkey

BuddyBonthenet wrote: »

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.

Errr...I think she should be able to do just fine with his regular contributions and 10% (£1million) in her bank account.

However, I do take the point of a previoius poster who commented that there should not be 1 rule for the rich and one for the ordinary people. Still £5million is a lot of money for old rope...

NeedaLotteryJackpot

This is all so much fantasy. far more interesting and useful would be for people to say what actually happened when THEY got divorced. Is there a thread for this?

Tiger_greeneyes

I'm a woman and voted for 20%. I understand he said he was going to provide for the children (clearly they're going to live with their mother) but there was no mention of whether the children would be expected to move out of his big millionaire's mansion and into a tiny two bedroomed housing association property as their mum had limited funds of her own and no job.

I think it would be fairer on the children to see their mum and dad with similar accommodation and furnishings etc - it also wouldn't be such a wrench for them to leave their old surroundings and would give them a more balanced view of life all round. That way, their mum could provide for them too, after all, the children didn't ask for their parents to divorce.

Also, forcing their mum out to work (if she got no settlement at all) would again be another big change for the children, that also would probably adversely affect them. There would also be child-care costs etc. Too many changes all around.

Two million is more than enough for anybody, and at the end of the day, the money would go to the children anyway.

I don't agree that she should get nothing, the same as if the tables were turned and she had all the money, then he should get 20%, too. They both chose to marry each other and that carries responsibility.

akane_2

female voted 10% on top of any childcare he agreed to.
This 10% is for her so forget about the children, its no good saying i gave up my job to have children blah blah blah if you want children then that's what you have to do if you want to look after them.
For the people who said she gave up work to look after the children PLEASE READ THE SCENARIO "THEY BOTH STOPPED WORKING"
HE SOLD HIS BUSINESS FOR TEN MILLION BEFORE THEY WERE TOGETHER, NOT HER, SHE DID NOT HELP
so he could say
"I created a business and sold it for ten million and was stopped from creating another business to sell for ten million because i looked after the children so how much percentage of her earning's am i going to get.

It would depend on the circumstnce's after the divorce which are not mentioned above.
As for those who said 40-50 % you all get a free lifetime membership to the HEATHER MILLS GOLD-DIGGER CLUB with free SHOULDER TO CRY ON card and HARD DONE BY car bumper sticker.

sinbinjack

mollie27 wrote: »

I also voted D. I'm a Woman. I agree with liz545 after 6 years out work it won't be easy to find a job and she has lost those 6 years in terms of career advancement.

They only reason I didn't vote that for the 50% option is because John has already agreed to provide for the kids.

srvr; what you say about a pre-nup might welll be true however there is another option: DON'T GET MARRIED.

Marriage to me represents sharing everything equally, what happened before the marriage is no longer relevant, you get married and plan to share the rest of your lives together, and if one party is good enough to share the house, fortune etc. with during the marriage then they are good enough to share it with should the marriage fail.

Maybe if more guys thought with their heads rather than their pants they wouldn't get married in the first place (or would ensure only they got married to THE ONE so divorce would never be an issue) and then at least we could skip all the whinging about having to share when they get divorced.....

Incidentally with regards to the gold digger comment, that works both ways, I have seen more than a few men (admittedly those of the older generations) that have gotten divorced or widowed that positively hunt for an instant replacement because someone is needed to cook, clean, wash and of course warm the bed, so gold diggers some women might be but at least you can argue that is because they seek financial security for themselves and their future children, what excuse do the men in the above scenario have? Lazyness and selfish pursuit of pleasure?

Why are some women so anti men ?.Just because you get married why do you expect to be cared for for the rest of your life? ,are you not responsible for your own life ?,and also to be responsible in some part for the children who you also bring into this world?( and you also have more say in wether you do bring children into the world than a man ,who seems to have no rights over a womans right to do with "her " body as "she " sees fit) Why is it always the man who has to bear the financial burden of their ex wives are they not able to work and so support themselves ?When a marriage comes to an end then there will always be two side to the breakup not just the womans side ,and the man should not always be made to be the only breadwinner ,if before marriage the woman worked and brought anything to the marriage ,in a financial sense ,then of course she is entitiled to a larger slice of the cake but I feel that the husbands only financial burden should be half the cost of his childrens upbringing as the wife also has a responsibility to care for her children as well.I would, in the case illuminated ,give more than half the child costs as I would be in a position to do so but I see no reason why an ex wife should get any money from me to pay her to sit on her behind.I vote nothing for the wife

srvr

Problem is these days you dont even need to get married for someone to have a claim on your estate. I also notice that those women who wouldn't be happy with a £1 Million pound 10% settlement plus money for the kids and money for maintenance also say marriage is about love.

I dont understand that.

So basically men you've got some tough choices and i dont like any of them.

Tiger_greeneyes

sinbinjack wrote: »

Why are some women so anti men ?.Just because you get married why do you expect to be cared for for the rest of your life? ,are you not responsible for your own life ?,and also to be responsible in some part for the children who you also bring into this world?( and you also have more say in wether you do bring children into the world than a man ,who seems to have no rights over a womans right to do with "her " body as "she " sees fit) Why is it always the man who has to bear the financial burden of their ex wives are they not able to work and so support themselves ?When a marriage comes to an end then there will always be two side to the breakup not just the womans side ,and the man should not always be made to be the only breadwinner ,if before marriage the woman worked and brought anything to the marriage ,in a financial sense ,then of course she is entitiled to a larger slice of the cake but I feel that the husbands only financial burden should be half the cost of his childrens upbringing as the wife also has a responsibility to care for her children as well.I would, in the case illuminated ,give more than half the child costs as I would be in a position to do so but I see no reason why an ex wife should get any money from me to pay her to sit on her behind.I vote nothing for the wife

And you think women are anti men? :rotfl:

sdooley

I didn't vote. There is no fair answer.

thanmuwa

The underlying assumption that Janet should get the kids is sexist. He managed to earn £10 million quid, and then gave it up and looked after kids/family full time? Surely he should be looking after the kids (and keeping the nice house) and she should be paying a chunk of her wages (assuming the bum got a job, although it sounds like she is work-shy) towards child support.