Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
undersupply

Forget Str & Btl.....

Recommended Posts

Well I dont know about footballers' wives but ...

I dont know how good a lawyer Mrs McFarlane would have been. If she were as good a lawyer as her husband was an accountant then she could have been getting 800k pa for the next 15 years. If so then I dont really think that she has done very well compared with the position she would be in if she had worked all those years and he had looked after the children.

I'd guess Ken is on about 600k or 700k and is about 45. So he has a lot of high earning years left. His new woman is a partner in the big 4. Say she is on about £400k. I dont think paying £250k for 4 years is going to do them much harm.

Having tried long hours in a law firm, shorter hours in an accountancy firm and looking after a baby, I know that the baby is by far the hardest job of the 3. I would never have guessed it until I tried it so I'm sure I cant convince you. But there it is.

Hardest but most rewarding, the 'pay' recieved for bringing up a child isnt supposed to be monetary, you're rewarded for your time in a differnt way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hardest but most rewarding, the 'pay' recieved for bringing up a child isnt supposed to be monetary, you're rewarded for your time in a differnt way.

theChuz,

Who has access to your PC? :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hardest but most rewarding, the 'pay' recieved for bringing up a child isnt supposed to be monetary, you're rewarded for your time in a differnt way.

True, but that reward comes at a price: loss of earnings and often far-reaching, long term career damage, even career suicide in some cases. If one partner makes this sacrifice in a marriage in agreement with the other partner,then they are entitled to half of the other parent's income and increased earning power for a similar length of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, but that reward comes at a price: loss of earnings and often far-reaching, long term career damage, even career suicide in some cases. If one partner makes this sacrifice in a marriage in agreement with the other partner,then they are entitled to half of the other parent's income and increased earning power for a similar length of time.

Only in cases with children, i believe

& why not just pay a flat rate eg 20k

There is no incentive for a woman to stay married to a rich man when divorce pays so well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't often hear about a bloke getting money from a woman do you? Why is this?

Some of these women give their gender a bad name.

If kids are involved, then its natural that there should be assistance from the father but this should be for the kids upbringing, not to pay for the ex's shopping habits!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To any blokes out there thinking of getting married - I would say DON'T!!! If you get divorced you will be taken to the cleaners - I was.

My Ex had her own carreer but never contributed towards the mortgage, council tax, utility bills etc. She spent most of her money going out, buying clothes etc etc. She stopped working after our second child was born because she didn't like the job any more and not for the welfare of the kids.

We got divorced. She got the house and a huge sum in maintenance on top of child support. And half my pension. The fact that the had not contributed to the mortgage and the fact that she had kept her earnings mainly for herself was completely ignored.

I would only marry again if it was possible to sign a binding pre-nuptial agreement... but why get married anyway? There is no benefit for men or for the kids - the benefit is for women who like the security.

Edited by othello

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only in cases with children, i believe

The post I replied to was about marriages with children.

& why not just pay a flat rate eg 20k

because when you get married you become a partnership and everything accumulated during that partnership should be shared 50/50 (in a long term marriage) It is not about determining how much running a home/bringing up children is 'worth'

There is no incentive for a woman to stay married to a rich man when divorce pays so well.

No financial incentive. And it should of course work both ways if the woman is rich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To any blokes out there thinking of getting married - I would say DON'T!!! If you get divorced you will be taken to the cleaners - I was.

My Ex had her own carreer but never contributed towards the mortgage, council tax, utility bills etc. She spent most of her money going out, buying clothes etc etc. She stopped working after our second child was born because she didn't like the job any more and not for the welfare of the kids.

We got divorced. She got the house and a huge sum in maintenance on top of child support. And half my pension. The fact that the had not contributed to the mortgage and the fact that she had kept her earnings mainly for herself was completely ignored.

I would only marry again if it was possible to sign a binding pre-nuptial agreement... but why get married anyway? There is no benefit for men or for the kids - the benefit is for women who like the security.

Sorry to hear all this - but not all women are like that. It sounds like she had a more ruthless lawyer than you. Would you still want to sign a pre-nup if you happened to meet a JK Rowling type? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We got divorced. She got the house and a huge sum in maintenance on top of child support. And half my pension. The fact that the had not contributed to the mortgage and the fact that she had kept her earnings mainly for herself was completely ignored.

I think in cases like this, the parent who is going to be housing the children (usually the wife) should only get to keep the house until the children are 18 then it should be sold and the proceeds split.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't often hear about a bloke getting money from a woman do you? Why is this?

Some of these women give their gender a bad name.

Mainly because women often earn less even for doing the same job and because they are more likely to have given up their career or taken a career break (which will have a long term impact on their earning power even if they return to work when the kids are in school)

If kids are involved, then its natural that there should be assistance from the father but this should be for the kids upbringing, not to pay for the ex's shopping habits!

Yes, basically the assets (including any increased earning potential) accumulated during the marriage should be split 50/50 except maybe the house which should be kept by the parent who will be housing the children until they are 18, then sold and the proceeds split. The maintenance paid for the support of the children should be calculated properly and I think the maintenance payer should be entitled to a proper breakdown of the expenses required eg. the extra power required to run a larger house, cost of food, entertainment, education etc etc. They should definately not have to pay for a shopping habit!!

Edited by miro2021

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a bit kinda torn by the ones with the kids. It all seems excessive, except that they have been living that kind of life for 16 years.

What about the one without the kids? There is a case going to appeal where after a huge 2.5 year marriage she got 5M. Damn it. Why didn't I try this before my bimbo appeal ran out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a bit kinda torn by the ones with the kids. It all seems excessive, except that they have been living that kind of life for 16 years.

What about the one without the kids? There is a case going to appeal where after a huge 2.5 year marriage she got 5M. Damn it. Why didn't I try this before my bimbo appeal ran out?

Yes - that sounds excessive to me - unless his income was 4M per year (on top of what they spent on 'living' during the marriage).

I think if people get married they should share the work and the financial income 50/50 during the time thay are married - the different sorts of work involved eg working for money in a job, working on keeping the home running, working on caring for children, should not be differentiated between.. all should be considered equal value. If partners cannot agree on the division of work, they should split.

If you don't want to share - don't get married. You cannot just marry someone for a while and then discard them and try and claim their contribution to the marriage was simply as a housekeeper/nanny try and pay them off accordingly.

I don't think prenuptials are really a great solution. If you want to put a value on your prospective spouse's contribution to the marriage, why get married at all?? Why not just say 'I will pay you £x per year as long as you live with me and make me happy. If you are still in my employ ahem heart after 5 years you will receive a bonus of £x, after 10 years I will give you a share of the equity in my house, after 15 years if I want to fire you ahem dissolve our union, I will pension you off with an annuity of £x per year.

If you want a business-like union... just call it a job NOT a marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, but that reward comes at a price: loss of earnings and often far-reaching, long term career damage, even career suicide in some cases. If one partner makes this sacrifice in a marriage in agreement with the other partner,then they are entitled to half of the other parent's income and increased earning power for a similar length of time.

perhaps such payouts should be calculated retrospectively, once it has been evidenced that short/medium/long term financial damage due to enforecd career break has actually been sustained.

On the proviso that some sort of regular child maintenance payment is paid monthly in the interim to avoid unnecessary hardship, I don't see that it is fair to claim such huge sums for settlement, when it is highly likely that the woman has the earning potential to easily afford good childcare in her own right.

Such sums assume the woman will never work again. Highly unlikely to be true IMO.

Anyway, while men gripe that the divorce settlements are rarely fair in monetary terms, I have a different bugbear.... the longer that divorce courts continue to see settle in favour of women, the longer we have to put up with being seen as financial dependents, which only hinders our fight for financial and employment equality generally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, while men gripe that the divorce settlements are rarely fair in monetary terms, I have a different bugbear.... the longer that divorce courts continue to see settle in favour of women, the longer we have to put up with being seen as financial dependents, which only hinders our fight for financial and employment equality generally.

Nice one. 100% agree. Marriage is about mutual support. But if a woman is out of the marriage (for whatever reason), then as far as I am concerned she can stand on your own two feet. The case of the 5M involved infidelity, but if he has been unfaithful, so what? He's may have owed her fidelity when he was married, but thats a matter of honour not money. Honour is not something that can or should be paid for later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, while men gripe that the divorce settlements are rarely fair in monetary terms,

Yes men often gripe that 'she got the house' blah blah, but what they sometimes fail to mention is the fact that while she got the house, he got to keep his pension pot. And while the house is 'worth' 300k, the equity in it is only 200k and his pension pot is an unencumbered 300k which she passed up her rights to in exchange for keeping the house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet another soul-destroying invention: Marry-to -Divorce

ALREADY there is a dating agency which only takes people who can prove a net worth of Pds.1 million plus

So you don't reckon I could fake it with a self-certification loan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

= =

"Would you still want to sign a pre-nup if you happened to meet a JK Rowling type?"

ABSOLUTELY!

If I loved her, I would WANT her to know I was NOT marrying her for the money or for the lifestyle.

But men are like that. Women are encouraged by our society to see marriage as a stepping stone

to a better lifestyle, and the courts are now encouraging that way of thinking (and plotting)

Dr Bubb - you sound quite a romantic at heart! lol!

I do actually agree that women are encouraged to see marriage as a stepping stone. I know many who have done that out of two fears - never meeting anyone, and never having a place of their own to live in. It's an issue that feminism has completely failed to tackle with any degree of rigour. However, not all women want to, or can, do this. I've turned down three marriage proposals because I had strong enough doubts to say no. But had I said yes to any of them I would have been substantially better off financially (although screwed up emotionally in the long run). But what we should acknowledge is that the odds are very much stacked against women earning anything like what men can command in the workplace in general. Part of the encouragement to marry for economic gain is that equality, in pay and opportunity at least, is still a very long way off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet another soul-destroying invention: Marry-to -Divorce

This means that Fraudulent intent is legal, and this is a rich-husband hunting license for every gold digger in the country. The likely result:

+ Women will be happy to take a chance on marriage with a wealthy man, even of they are doubtful, because whatever happens they will be financially better off,

and vice versa

+ Wealth men will become more cycnical about women's intentions, and evn less likely to marry,

Which should solve the problem with gold diggers and encourage women not to throw away their independence and neglect their financial futures

+ When hit with these huge settlements, alot of men will simply disappear,

The settlement should be 50% of assets accumulated during the marriage (pension, house equity, earning power etc)

+ Murder (of spouses) will rise,

I think you are right there

+ Wealthy women will find that they are target also,

agreed

+ Wealthy people will eb more inclinced to also seek wealthy spouses

That's what happened in the past (and in the present in some countries) A woman was only marriageable if she had a dowry. The man knew he had to support her for life so he only took her on if she brought some money

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Part of the encouragement to marry for economic gain is that equality, in pay and opportunity at least, is still a very long way off"

I disagree.

Any women can do exactly what I do to make a living - trading.

Very few try, and most screw it up. BTW most men screw it up too.

A lot of women have doen well in property 'tho.

I dont think they are very good about getting out, and many will go bust because the lack

the appreciation of the risk they are taking

"Dr Bubb - you sound quite a romantic at heart! "

I am not a romantic. But I have an ACUTE sense of fairness.

The divorce laws are not fair, and that bothers me tremendously, since it creates

the golddigger mentality

There are, of course, exceptions, but overall, women are not earning on an equal footing. There are countless examples in employment-based professions (as opposed to self-employment).

There's a lot in life that isn't fair. It isn't fair that in traditionally 'female' jobs (primary teaching, nursing etc) there's a disproportionately high number of men in senior management roles. It isn't fair that ARTs are available freely in some areas and not others. It isn't fair that glass ceilings exist in many companies. The list is endless. Divorce laws are simply exploited by ruthless divorce lawyers. I know several couples who have separated perfectly amicably until lawyers got involved for the divorce. It's at that point ('I could get you xyz, you're entitled to abc etc etc') that it can all get very nasty. Maybe it should be possible to divorce without this degree of third party involvement?

Edited by Mags

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to hear all this - but not all women are like that. It sounds like she had a more ruthless lawyer than you. Would you still want to sign a pre-nup if you happened to meet a JK Rowling type? ;)

No but I'm sure JK would! Women are far more ruthless than men!

I think in cases like this, the parent who is going to be housing the children (usually the wife) should only get to keep the house until the children are 18 then it should be sold and the proceeds split.

That woul be fair but the courts don't see it like that. Also since my kids spend 2/3 weekends with me I need to house them just as much as she does - but again the courts don't view it like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No but I'm sure JK would! Women are far more ruthless than men!

I think there's something in that, but it's important to look at why. I don't know the answer - survival instinct maybe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 339 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.