Should a Spouse get half of their partner's income or wealth during a divorce? Why or why not?

[razelove]

No, my reasoning is very simple. Gaming and exploiting a divorce is far too simple.

Debt is an asset, and the "half" is only in states with community property. Otherwise there's no guarantee that either side will leave with a penny to their name. I know a guy who's paying alimony of 800k/year for the rest of his life, regardless of how much he's earning. She divorced him when he had a good job with a good year that had a great bonus. He doesn't have the job anymore, but he still has the alimony to pay, god forbid she loses that standard of living.

On my end, if I wanted to make a divorce vicious I would buy property, max out cards, and amass as much debt as possible. I'd then transfer all of the actual value to someone else I trust for a dollar at a notary. Now I'm worth debt, with community property, we now have debt to split, and all the actual value is waiting for me when the divorce is over with a nice bird-dog fee going to them.

There are winners and losers in divorce. The only way to win is to make sure your former lover loses, and loses hard. Kids become pawns and will lose regardless of who "wins"

If it's a 50/50 split as many states and courts strive for, I can exploit that so your portion is 50% of, I don't know, let's say 1.5 million is the most debt I think I could rack up within a year. Being able to keep 1.5 million in assets for 750k, winning. You getting 0 dollars of worth for 750k in debt... losing. Also a good example of why it's so dangerous to have your identity stolen, imagine getting that bill without even having the marriage or divorce.

[zeitgeist057]

A marriage is a legal contract, a divorce is the dissolution of that legal contract.

There of course are a lot of romantic ideas floating around about marriage as well and for most people the legal part of it is not the "important part". But the legal part of it is what covers the financial aspect of it. Another thing the romantic side probably thinks of as "unimportant". But when the romance is gone, all you have left is the legality.

As a legal contract, marriage basically states that you and your partner are a team. Whatever you produce together, is considered earned together and should be divided equally. If that means one person is leaving the home each day and coming home every night with $5,000 in their pocket, and the other person is staying home each day and has $0 in their pocket each night, it is considered they together, as a team, produced $5,000 and each is entitled to half, or $2,500.

I'm not here to judge but just for speculation's sake you could have a lazy "worker" and a productive "homemaker" just as much as you can have a productive "worker" and a lazy "homemaker". What each person brings to the team is not always easily measured in financial wealth. This is why I think the finances should be split evenly. If that's not a contract you think is fair, then definitely reconsider the standard marriage contract if you ever do get married, and make any adjustments you and your partner agree on. If you can't agree, then don't sign the contract.

[DizzyDesii]

I think they should get what they came in with (or what they separately earned while together). We have separate accounts for a reason... and hidden nonbank accounts for this specific reason. If kids are involved, then the courts should take an equal amount from both parents to put towards the kid. OR just make it where the kid is required to be financially cared for by the parent who chose to take the custody for the time being. (Example, when he’s with me, I’ll pay for his expenses. When he’s with you, you can pay for his expenses.) Like why foght for custody if you can't financially care for the kid all by yourself 🤷‍♀️

[modelUN242]

The divorce laws are unfair so definitely not. Don't get a divorce then. And those who make excuses as to why divorce is bad WHY ARE YOU GETTING MARRIED in the first place? Pick your partner carefully. Divorce is bad and these laws are making it easier to get them which is ridiculous. People just don't try anymore and want things the easy way.

When you get married, you share everything between the two so why does it make sense for you to get half of the person's you despise (that's why you divorced them, you hate them) their assets.

[OlderAndWiser]

In my state (Florida,) each spouse keeps

1. what was theirs before the marriage,
2. anything that they inherited during the marriage, and
3. anything that they received as a gift from anyone other than their spouse.

Marital assets are those things that were acquired during the marriage (regardless of whether those assets are titled jointly or in just one name,) and those are usually divided evenly between the spouses. The same division is made with debts.

4. Any debt that a spouse had before the marriage is solely that spouse's debt.
5. Any debts that were acquired during the marriage (regardless of whether those debts are titled jointly or in just one name,) are divided evenly between the spouses.

[Brainsbeforebeauty]

If it's wealth created during the marriage by both parties or if one stayed home at the request of the other to take care of the kids/family why should that person now walk away with nothing after sacrificing their career for their family?
Can't have it both ways.. Some men say they want their wife not to work but then want to say in a divorce she should get nothing? So why should a woman take that risk? Isn't that why alimony and child support for established in the first place? Because of the men that thought they could abandon their wives and children with nothing and then start over with a new family leaving women to scramble to find employment but being out of the workforce so long and not having the work experience others had had to take whatever they could get, which wasn't always enough. And divorcing doesn't excuse any parent, male or female from still providing for their child.

[ObscuredBeyond]

Family courts have to start getting paid to stop tearing families apart. Make dissolution a desperate last resort.

Currently, family courts are able to make a mint off destruction of a family. The laws in place now all but guarantee that! It's an open door to secret trials, forgery of signatures on documents, human trafficking , extortion , robbery, etc. Blatant human rights violations, enacted under the color of law, with zero transparency or accountability!

Corruption under such a setup is limitless. Yet, the measure remains firmly intact. Because not enough groups are suing in the right places to hold accountable the ghouls responsible. Until we can have fair and trustworthy elections again , rather than letting Generation Participation Trophy run the show, we won't get a Congress with the moral fiber to repeal unjust laws. Nor a president who will prosecute courts and bureaucrats who act in bad faith !

The current cream of Red and Blue Kool Aid crop is fully content with keeping Bill Clinton's legacy alive, no matter who gets hurt!

[Xitomyth]

It's more of a subjective thing, a case by case situation. Who has what, who made what, how to provide for the kids, etc. I don't think anyone should be left destitute, but once you part, why should you pay for anything for the other person? It's up to both parents to raise and provide for the kids, it's not the 1800's anymore, both parents should get jobs and agree on their own how to provide for the kids and raise them. Child support should only be paid until the other parent can provide for the kids and prove that they are working towards that end by documenting job applications in some way. As for splitting property, I'll leave that up to the pair, who needs what then decide who wants what. Income is EARNED, no one is entitled to be paid for doing nothing. Most people will support their partner until they get their feet under them.

[Redred56]

Myself personally I’ve seen and know instances where the wife didn’t want half, she got it all!
And those same men told me that was the best money spent to get rid of their headaches.
But one word was brought up to protect one’s self. That being Prenuptial and when you think
It’s a great idea. What’s hers is hers and yours etc. plus the $$ stress if any will be gone!
Now from a older perspective. My parents use to have 1yes one, uno bank account with both their
Name on it. Just like everything else. Guess what they were not wealthy!
What I’m saying is today trust and real love are gone. My father passed on their 60th. Today a prenup.
Times they are a changin~ Bob Dylan

[Miristheiss]

"Half their income".
Not sure what is meant by that.
Income is what an employer pays an employee... based on the pay scale of that career... based on education, talent, experience, performance... etc.
That is just between the employer and employee.

If there is a divorce than each person is an independent citizen. Each earns their own way through life. Neither is due the other's income. That is theirs alone.

Property and assets that are equally owned or accumulated during the marriage should be split equally. Anything either owned BEFORE marriage should stay with the owner.

The income has nothing to do with the other person.

[Sarahr123]

No they shouldn’t. As long as you are together whatever is theirs is shared but once they separate then why should they take what belongs to an ex partner?

I would not take anything if I got divorced from my husband and I would not want to give anything either.

I think if there are children that are proven to be the man’s or woman’s biologically then they should give something to them because a lot of people wash their hands of children after a divorce and something should be put in place to help children financially.

[amadimal]

Legally, as long as there is no prenup to establish the terms for dividing assets, you have to follow the pre-established rules.
When you get a divorce, each spouse gets to keep whatever property they owned before marriage, while the shared property gets divided equally (in most of the cases) OR fairly. I think this is normal. If we've been married for ten years and we bought a house together, it's fair to split it equally. If you had a condo and I had a car before we got married, those are ours alone.
As to the income part, nobody can or should have access to that - that's the amount of money you get paid for doing whatever job you were hired for. A former spouse can have access to some of your income money if you have children together and you have to pay alimony - but even then, the money are for the children, not for your former spouse.

[slatyb]

In community property states, all assets that accrued to either partner during the marriage are joint assets. Assets owned prior to the marriage are not marital assets are are not subject to division. So yeah, it's fair that the joint assets are divided between the parties.

[irohfan]

It depends if they have kids or not. If they don’t then I don’t see why they should get half, because kids are expensive. Also I don’t think it should be for the rest of their lives like in some cases. I think it ends when the kid is 18 because they are legally considered adults, and any extra help would come from the kindness of the father and their relationship.

[JackSmy]

I wouldn't marry without a prenuptial agreement, that what I bring, before the marriage is STILL MINE, if there is a divorce, and what she has is hers!
I've seen too many "loving couples" arguing over books, or DVDs, in the break up!
Mostly, I don't see a point to marriage!! I don't see ANY BENEFIT, AT ALL, for the man?
Please, if you know, tell me WHY, a man should consider marriage?
Seems like a lose-lose situation, with Lawyers, and a lot of wasted money!!

[art84]

When my uncle divorced from his wife, she got the house and one of his cars and alimony. He moved away from her and went to live in a house that he rents for the time being. I do feel bad for my uncle having to give her money but at least it's for three years. After that is wife is on her own as far as money goes.

[the007datingcoach]

Personally if the man had wealth and success before his wife she shouldn't get a dime!

If they have children he should contribute to child support. Anyone else wanting more than that is a gold digger...🤷🏼‍♂️

[Anonymous]

No, unless only one partner has been working and made all the money and agreed about this, they have kids together and they have been together for years, real love, and the working partner has been making a looot og money while the other one was taking care of house, kids and supporting the other one. Then I think it is fair, maybe or maybe not 50% but a fair share.

[SabinaV]

It only applies when there is consent.

No especially without consent, otherwise the involved would be sued.

Before getting into marriage, it would be preferable to discuss about this with the partner.
For example, a prenuptial agreement may be a good resort incase of divorce/unforseen events.

[AnthonyJ01]

Taking have of your ex's earnings is theft in most cases. If they helped build that, then possibly.
My ex threatened to steal half of my retirement, but had no chance. Not attorney or judge could do it because she was never married to me when I earned it. She never even knew me then.

[mistixs]

It depends on a case-by-case basis. It makes sense if the lesser-earning spouse contributed equal value in other ways during the marriage, that they would both take equal value out of the marriage.

[Leavesbound]

That depends on many factors. If you cheated on me then I should not have to give you anything other than child support.

[BentAssassin99]

I like how 11 women said yes. Like nah girl you wanted this Cash then u would of had it if we stayed together cause I'd probably kms in the future anyway. Prenup immediately.

[Arabella_Rose]

In marriage, both you and your spouse combine both your assets. Any debt that you take on, your wife also takes on. Any income that you make, will also be your wife's income. Both husband and wife are seen as 1 entity, not separate entities. So it makes sense that assets should be split 50/50 upon divorce. If you do not like this reality, then its better to not get married.

[Gabboo332]

wen get that way too much, men should be able to get some after divorce, but with how fucked up our system is, men never win even if wen were in the wrong and it's sick

[Anpu23]

Wealth that was gained while together should be split. But any wealth brought into the relationship should return to the owner.

[andreasderjuengere]

Two reasonable people will get to reasonable agreements without any law involved.
Two unreasonable people - I don't see why taxpayer's money should be spent to settle a disagreement between idiots; let them fight it out on a private base.

[Snakeyes7]

No, if a spouse wants to leave, they must give up all benefits from being with that partner. If the spouse being left was a horrible person, the spouse would see no benefits being lost; otherwise, they do not deserve to give up anything they worked hard for to someone who clearly doesn’t want it.

[Just_call_me_Levi]

In my subjective opinion? Everything you owned before the relationship is yours to keep, (this includes savings) but everything you bought and earned during the relationship, needs to be split equally.

Unless children are involved, then it gets more difficult, but definitely think the parent that has custody over the children deserves more, as they need to sustain themselves are the little rascal (s).

[Anonymous]

It's either one or another.
It's either BOTH spouses should get half of everything from their partner (also including sex, cooking etc...) or spouses should just disappear from each others life.
And just make the law simple:
"You have the right to get half, but you'll also give half of you duties back to him/her"

[RationalMale]

It's funny that the wife can complain and badger her way to get to retire and be a stay at home mom, and then profit massively for it during divorce.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

I think so. Marriage is family and something that's extremely sacred and shared. All is one and if split through divorce then half should be split.

[robocop666]

what did they do to earn it? nothing. Marrying is signing a contract for a declining asset to sign over half your wealth. Worst deal ever and prenups can be ignored.

[Ellie-V]

Yes but only in the case where it was decided that one would not work and instead stay at home (whoever that may be because there are househusbands too).

[Vickysplash_]

There’s a precise rationale behind divorce laws. They may seem unfair and when one of the two spouses misuse it they are (For example when a gold digger who never worked a day in their life gets lots of money from their exes) but for the “normal” couple, the law is supposed to strike a balance between who had an income and who was taking care of the house and children

[Iron_Man]

I don’t think so what if that was his inheritance from his family?

[Taylor_C]

Of course not. Any adult should be supporting themselves and not parasite off of others

[bamesjond0069]

I mean in a way if girls were giving their husband their virginity for his money i can see an argument but otherwise hell no.

[Just_Me89]

No; people should receive what they contribute unless they've made the express decision to divide their wealth between them or made decisions surrounding how much one of them gets if they have stayed at home and not received an income.

[Anonymous]

I wonder if partners should split the wealth and resources generated during the partnership and keep what they had before hand.
I think the reason this is not more common is it may be complicated to administer.

[lucyloo76]

I wish I got half in my divorce.
I got a good settlement. But we are still talking.
If you fight too much the only people that get a good settlement are the legal people.

[Pogi-Paddy]

Personally I believe that the woman side of a divorce should get at least 50% and up to 80% of the man's wealth, because approximately 80% of all divorces are initially in response to the man's behaviour.

[sixtyeightplusone]

if the gynocentric laws end, more eligible men will be open to marriage

[Justneedtokno]

It all depends on how they obtain their wealth, Was it during the relationship, did their partner aid in their wealth.

[hi_it_is_me123]

You may pay alimony or lose your house in where you both or with kids live-so if you have a house, do not live there with your family lol. Then you can't get the half of the money or any other goods of your spouse in my country except alimony

[Jamie05rhs]

No one should be rewarded for divorce. I'm even tempted to say that both parties should pay a penalty to the government for wasting everyone's time.

[Juxtapose]

No lol.

What's yours is yours and what is mine is mine.

[Anonymous]

no let her keep whatever she earns and let him keep whatever he earns

[AkshiJanjua]

The individual should themselves deny taking half of that they didn't earn if they have some self respect

[jshm2]

Yes, unless they can prove a reason not to.

[IndianWife]

no. i dont encourage it. why do you take their income when you are not part of their life

[ThisIsMyOpinion]

Half? No. A share for the kids? Sure.

[Hyped_up_on_coffee]

That’s why prenups exist

[JamieLoves]

They should receive, what they came with..

[LuvMeSomeBoys]

Far too many variables to answer this question.

[Josh4206]

Not unless they made the money

[Anonymous]

no of cource