What’s a fair divorce settlement? Poll discussion

srvr

This is how my cynical mind sees it at the moment:

1) Marriage costs a lot of money
2) Marriage has a 50% failure rate
3) Its unlikely that i will benefit from divorce
4) Its likely that i will be penalised disproportionately
5) I dont need to be married to be good father
6) This poll indicates that a worryingly large majority of women think that just the act of marriage means they are entitled to half regardless of circumstances
7) This poll indicates the women talk a good game about marrying for love but when it comes to it they are very mercenary
8) In contract terms Marriage is not a good investment
9) I have a serious aversion to Golddiggers, probably becuase i am not rich
10) The women who suffer most in divorce are those who deserve to suffer the least.

But i still Love you all heres my Valentine Card :rolleyes::D;):p:o:rotfl:

Saucepot

Where is the option "Give her a toffee apple and tell her to sling her hook, she's getting nowt" ????

dougz_2

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.

If you think that way because you think the children should have more, then your idea could actually be a very big mistake. Just because their mother has extra capital at this stage does not mean it ever goes to them, quite the reverse could happen, for example she could remarry and it end up automatically going to her new husband or her new husbands children. If it was all still with their father, he might have left it all to them in a will, or given as gifts to them during his life. If she has half the money instead he would only have half as much to give them, so they COULD lose out massively financially in the long run.

janes__addiction

killer133 wrote: »

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

personally i think they should split the assets he knew her financial situation theres things out there called a pre nup lol.
if it had been the other way round n the woman had made the money and the man was left with the custody of the kids id say the exact same thing.
if however they had not had children then i'd say give her 10 percent n tell her to jog on

arthur_dent_2

I am a woman and I voted 10% as I don't feel that it would be fair to leave with nothing however if there had been a fixed sum option of about £500,000, I would have voted for that. So in conclusion I suppose 5 % is about right.

janes__addiction

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

hold up a minute she's got custody of the kids she's the one having to raise them and if the guy managed to make all that money and just so happened to forget to draw up a pre nuptual agreement then more fool the fella in the first place im not anti men never have been im anti idiots

lynk_2

Whatever either partner had prior to marriage should not be taken into account when calculating a divorce settlement. If there is to be a settlement (either way) then it should be calculated on the finances and possessions FROM the date of marriage or co-habitation.
It is unfair to include a person's wealth prior to marriage. Both parties should sign an agreement stating this. It would put a lot of Gold diggers out of action.
As a woman I believe in fair play.

MiserlyMartin

Don't get married - live together. Problem is aren't there moves to give couples who live together over two years exactly the same legal rights as married couples? Did this ever happen or was this one of this governments many talked about but never actioned ideas of which they seem to be so fond of?

If this has/does happen then the answer is to:
1. Never live with anyone - 'live together apart.'
2. Boot your other half out on your 2nd aniversary. Happy aniversary darling - your stuff's in the hallway.

srvr

janes _addiction

personally i think they should split the assets he knew her financial situation theres things out there called a pre nup lol.

hold up a minute she's got custody of the kids she's the one having to raise them and if the guy managed to make all that money and just so happened to forget to draw up a pre nuptual agreement then more fool the fella in the first place im not anti men never have been im anti idiots

Perhaps you didnt read the above posts, Prenups have no legal basis in the UK divorce courts.

&

MiserlyMartin

Thanks for the advice, so ill date for 3 years, cohabit for 2 and trade in, bit like a car really. Now thats a sad metaphor for relationships.

Daft_Monkey

I'm a man and voted for Janet to get nothing.
I fail to see why should she be entitled to anything.