Is it really fair that a wife gets 50/50 of assets after divorce?

[Anonymous]

I was asked why women always get half the assets in a divorce without doing anything to earn it.

Raising children: When children go to school, they’re only home half the day and need to be looked after.

What’s your opinion? Is it fair that the wife gets half (house, car, money...) in a divorce?

If yes, what’s your reasoning?

If no, what’s your reasoning?

[Master_Debator]

I don't think it's fair. I'll explain why and use a woman getting divorce raped to avoid looking like I'm sexist on this topic.

She's put her money into savings, and made investments... days on end of working and and she's been making payments on a house. Almost has it payed off. Then she meets Mr. Right.

You know love and all that, he seems great, fast forward to after they're married. Turns out his nice ass car is behind on payments, he has a college debt that's pretty outragious that he never bothered to tell her about, A real spender... loves trips and vacations... he makes money but spends it all on bullshit as soon as he gets it.

Anyways she gets put off of work one day because some asshole pulled a fire alarm or something, so she goes home. Catches him fucking some slutty slut right there on the couch. Fast forward from here and skip all the drama.

Now we're in divorce court... he refuses to move out of the house, and even though it's in her name, he put up a chain link fence and bought a new stove (with her money), so now her home that she payed off is comunal property. She's already been dealing with months of coming home to slutty slut in her house cooking and then trying to sleep while he claps her cheeks in the other bedroom all loud af, but that's another story.

So the house is in question, she'll have to pay him to leave, or sell it and split the money with him. Her investments and savings have to be acknowleged by the court... he hasn't invested shit, hasn't saved shit, and just took vacations all the time. Because he stayed home with the kids, he's considered the main caregiver. She had to keep working to support the family. So now she's losing half of all her shit, might get to see the kids every other weekend, and has to just work more and pay him more. He continues living the good life... probably keeps the house (think about the children you know), and she is pushed to the point of living out of her car... having to shower at Planet fitness and work...

Nothing is fair about any of that. She thought she found a good guy, and he just played video games all day while she was working... apparently fucking other women as well while the kids were at school. Now she's paying him a large ammount in child support, living like a slave to the system and all because she got with some loser that she thought loved her more than anything in the world. Her kids are slowly being turned against her, from what they hear most of the week, it's all Mommies fault. She can't afford to get a decent place, so that once every other weekend with the kids slowly turns into maybe once a month... Sluttly slut pays the bills now, and she has to pay him... a bunch of money she knows doesn't get spent on the kids. He's living like a king now with slutty slut... and her... she has to rebuild from the ground up.

That's the end of my story... I don't care if that shit is done to a man or a woman... I just think it's wrong. There's a state that made child ownership automatically 50/50 and the divorce rates dropped, turns out people don't want to divorce when they can't get rich off doing so. Our divorce system is outdated and no fault divorce made it even worse. The lady in my story can't do shit about the cheating... it's not allowed to be a factor now, because no fault divorce. It's a shitty story isn't it?

[Anonymous]

It depends.

A marriage is a partnership in which each partner SHOULD focus on the things they can do to bring the most value to the marriage. A wife who takes care of the children and home so her husband can do what he does best to financially support and protect the family is bringing just as much value to the family as her husband is. And she is also sacrificing her own career and future earning power to do it. A divorce where she doesn't get half the assets would put her in a difficult economic position after the divorce, which is unfair.

On the other hand, if she was just a stay at home wife, that's a different story.

[Asker]

When she stays home she can't work for her own retirement for example. She loses years of her life maybe and it's a compensation. I guess that's why the law in some countries divide 50/50.

[HawkPerception]

It depends on the scenario. If she cheated on her husband, she deserves nothing. And I strongly believe there should be a fine for cheating in a marriage.

If he was the one to cheat, then he should absolutely pay for her living expenses until he dies, or she no longer wants him to.

If she didn't cheat, and left her job to be a stay-at-home wife/mother, but just fell out of love, then I'd say the man should pay for her living expenses until she gets on her feet again and then some.

There are countless other scenarios, but it really should go on a case-by-case basis.

[midnightmoon05]

The most unfair are the kids. Who is asking about the kids?

Some states based on the higher earner split. So if the father was a stay home dad, the mom works, then it is splitted based on her income. Yes, once kids go to school, stay home person (mom or dad) gets a part time job. with both income, hire another helper. That is marriage.

But if communication is not align... what's fair?

None of the splits make sense to the kids. At the end it's the kids who suffers and gets confused.

[indissoluble]

Thus why you should never pay for women at any time. If there is 50/50 splits in divorce, then women should be accustom to paying 50% of everything in a relationship at all times. It's the only way relationships work fairly under the law. Even equitable distribution states, anything acquired during the marriage (relationship) is 50/50 split even if you get to keep what you had before the marriage 100%. Thus anything important to you should be acquired before you get married and protected in a trust, and you should make women pay half of everything during the marriage on shared property so that if you ever part ways the split is honest and everyone can walk away with what they put into the relationship.

[Anonymous]

I would say it depends. If it’s something they built together than yes. If he was already established, had everything then she came into his life, they got married then divorced. No. But at the same time if he has a lot I think he should help her out if he wanted a wife, a mother to his child so that meant her not working. So of course she’s more than likely not going to have her own finances. But too if she decides she just wants a divorce cause she’s not happy than no. Women’s emotions tend to change all the time. If she cheated then they divorced. Hell no. It’s all circumstantial.

[OneViewpoint]

The law looks at marriage as a cooperative partnership. Traditionally women gave up careers and earning power to raise children. That costs them economically. Courts try to factor that into divorce settlements. And a man's duty to his children doesn't end with divorce. Child support is often a large part of the settlement.

Yeah, looking at those things is fair.

[CherryLove007]

yes it is fair... its a business partnership and more

[OneViewpoint]

@CherryLove007 ,

A lot of angry men want a clean break with no ties to their ex wife going forward. They let their emotions cloud their judgement and common sense. It doesn't work that way. Like it or not the courts force at least an economic tie for some period of time to try and achieve a fair division of the equity in the marriage, tangible (cars and homes) and intangible (earning capacity).

[CherryLove007]

yea well welcome to the real world and struggle love.

[CherryLove007]

Captain Jack Sparrow stated that... "The problem is not the problem, the problem is your attitude about the problem.

[OneViewpoint]

@CherryLove007 ,

LOL

[molonski2]

It's closer to 60 % if there are children involved.

If you are a male who has done okey / well , holding solid assets , you simply cannot afford to marry someone poorer ( even with a prenup - near useless in Australia) ..

Especially in the instance where the guy was a great provider and father , divorce is incredibly destructive to nett worth..

I agree it's completely unreasonable, and it happened to me , the worst period of my life , though the family into turmoil 60 % .

[Telekinetic-Potato]

I think the idea behind it is good but there needs to be adjustments. Like first of all the 50/50 thing should be within reason.

And the standard shouldn't be that after the divorce the less well off partner gets to maintain the same level of lifestyle. That's silly.

[jshm2]

To be fair, it's little to do with the wife, and more to do with the lawyer.

A good lawyer tends to be able to reason why the wife should get what she gets.

Don't forget that on average the assets are not "halved" as you still need to pay the lawyers. So taking that fee out, often its a lot less.

[andreasderjuengere]

It's fair, because: men know the trap. If they marry despite of it, and ending up in that mess - well deserved.
"WE" are supposed to be the 'strong part' in a "traditional" marriage. So... make provisions, men.
And make excuses, boys.

[MrChinaski]

50/50 isn't automatic, but it is an anchor point. Courts take account of contributions of both parties both financial and non-financial, as well as assets brought into the relationship, and future needs. Still a court decision outside the 40:60 to 60:40 range is uncommon.

Marriage involves pooling assets. It's part of the deal. If you aren't on board with that, don't marry.

[Anonymous]

Nope it’s not. Because no man works his whole life, to be with a woman, who has far more abundance of options than him, for her to just one day up and leave because she decided “she can do better”, and then take everything he worked for while she’s at it.

Does it sound fair to you?

[LiamJHayden]

Each situation is different. A SAHM who spent two decades raising the children and who was cheated on, yes she deserves at least half. A lazy one who had no children and did not work in a short marriage in which she was the cheater deserves nothing. There are obviously shades in between.

[msc545]

No, it's not fair at all. Women think that things like cleaning the house or raising children are equivalent to doing real work and they are not. I don't even think women believe this but they have to have some excuse for basically what turns out to be theft.

[CherryLove007]

I spit my tea out... all is fair in marriage and marriage

[CherryLove007]

The law says both helped create that success. LIfe is unfair for the married ones.

[msc545]

I think the law is wrong and unfair to men. Just because you get a financial advantage of it doesn't mean that it's something that should be continued or even observed.

[FunkyMonkee]

No! She shouldn't get ANY!!
Does he ever get 50% oof her stuff? Aren't we supposed to have equal rights? Alright! So, if he doesn't get anything of hers, why should she get anything of his? Especially if SHE wanted the divorce!!

[Asker]

Shure 50 percent of everything including hers.

[FreyaRed]

Yes for assets obtained while marriage. If a person owned a million before marriage and they were married two weeks it's unfair another person gets 500k after divorce.

[Nikki1989]

Dude!

Marriage is treated as an economic partnership, not a romantic one, when it ends. If you find it difficult to comprehend this, it's advisable to avoid marriage.

[goaded]

Yes, because you entered into a contract. No, if the poorer one of you causes the break-up by breaking the whole "faithful" part of the contract.

[msc545]

Nobody literally signs a contract when they get married. It's just assumed by the courts and without any good reasons.

[goaded]

@msc545 In the UK you do. OK, it's not called a contract, but it has legal force.

"You must sign a legal statement at your local register office to say you intend to get married or form a civil partnership. This is known as ‘giving notice’.

You must give notice at least 29 days before your ceremony.

For example, if you give notice on 1 May, the earliest date you can get married or form a civil partnership is 30 May.

You must hold your ceremony within 12 months of ‘giving notice’."
www.gov.uk/.../give-notice

[msc545]

Oh well that's even arguably worse than what they do to you here. What they do to you here is just assume the existence of a contract and hold you to it. A contract that they have created that you never had an opportunity to read.

[goaded]

@msc545 What's a vow, if not a contract?

[msc545]

It's just talk. Talk is cheap and not enforceable.

[goaded]

@msc545 In this particular case it's neither.

[msc545]

What particular case are you speaking of?

[goaded]

@msc545 Marriage. Taking your vows is expensive and enforceable.

[msc545]

I don't know what you people do there but hear anything less than a written contract with a lot of legal language. He's not a contract and not enforceable.

[goaded]

@msc545 "It's just assumed by the courts and without any good reasons. " so it seems it is enforceable.

[msc545]

Because something is assumed by the courts doesn't mean that it can't be challenged.

[Drumlin2001]

50/50 of current assets maybe fair, though pre nuts should. be allowed to outline before marriage if needed. But spousal support shouldn't be paid

[MrChinaski]

Pre nuts? lmao

[Drumlin2001]

Pre nups. Damn autocorrect

[Anonymous]

Guess life isn't always fair what's a man like me to say 🥲🥹

[Asker]

The woman lost years she earned no money. What compensation would you say would be fair?

[Anonymous]

Maybe. It's kind of like a tax on guys for being dumb enough to get married in the first place without a proper pre-nup.

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

You’ve never been married, have you?

[Asker]

I was asked. A man complained about his ex wife. She got 50 percent. He asked me why. Foe what. I have never been married.

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

So, when you get married your assets combine, both financially and physically, especially if they share property like a house per se. When you divorce, that property you share has to be split because marriage is a legal agreement regarding the distribution of property between the two parties.

[ABC1x1x]

I'd gladly pay half for freedom.

[Anonymous]

Yes, fair is fair.

[robocop666]

nope she didn't work for them

[Jeff51]

That's fair.

[Asker]

Please explain why it is fair in youe opinion.

[Jeff51]

Split up the assets equally. Sell if need be than 50/50. Your old enough and should know this.