We had fun a debate about We had fun a debate about marriage and children on another thread.
Now, in case of divorce, how much should the richer spouse pay up? What is enough in your view?
The McCourt divorce is entertaining to watch.
“They lived in seven lavish homes … they flew in private jets … they had hair stylists come to their house every day. Every need, every want these people had was met,” he told Los Angeles County Superior Court Commissioner Scott Gordon on Monday morning.
I think that Frank McCourt I think that Frank McCourt would have made his fortune with or without his wife.
I don’t think that she contributed anything to the fortune.
In my opinion Jamie should be provided a house to live by her husband. But it should be up to her to find a job like every one else and earn the money to maintain whatever house she gets.
8bitnintendo
March 29, 2010 @
4:30 PM
Not enough information Not enough information provided in this article for me to make an informed response. I am assuming children are not involved since none were mentioned.
Generally, I think that if one spouse has made documentable sacrifices (in their career, or future prospects) in order to support the other’s career, then the financially successful spouse does owe some of their success to that support and therefore to the divorcing partner (who has in a sense contributed a share to that success.) Naturally if Frank’s financial position is weaker now than it has been, her share of that position is also lessened. You can tell what a romantic I am, since I am basically describing a marriage as forming a business partnership. However once assets have been divided (she has spun out into her own separate financial entity), I’d think that would cover any profit due to her contributions, and he therefore shouldn’t owe any further support.
This is of course assuming that no property agreements were signed, which is not true in their case (link below indicates previously agreed-upon documents give the Dodgers to Frank and the properties to his wife.) Assuming these are legally binding documents, I’d say the consideration is more than reasonable.
In most cases (but perhaps In most cases (but perhaps not for the ultra-rich), it is much more expensive to support two separate households (after divorce) than one (in marriage). There are two places to rent, two places to furnish, two sets of utilities, etc.
For most normal people, these comprise at least 30% of annual income, so it is at least 30% more expensive to live apart than married and maintain the same lifestyle. This makes it patently unfair on most cases for one spouse to support the other spouse at the same lifestyle.
Even in cases where each spouse makes the same exact amount of income, it is impossible for each to maintain the same lifestyle separately.
scaredyclassic
March 29, 2010 @
9:31 PM
hey i have an idea; what hey i have an idea; what about a massive tax on divorce! make it sliding scale; has this tax ever been mentioned before? we have a marriage tax penalty, why not a divorce penalty!
kev374
April 1, 2010 @
12:11 AM
scaredycat wrote:hey i have [quote=scaredycat]hey i have an idea; what about a massive tax on divorce! make it sliding scale; has this tax ever been mentioned before? we have a marriage tax penalty, why not a divorce penalty![/quote]
what a great idea… Obama should implement this to raise money for healthcare
CA renter
March 29, 2010 @
11:53 PM
8bitnintendo wrote:Not enough [quote=8bitnintendo]Not enough information provided in this article for me to make an informed response. I am assuming children are not involved since none were mentioned.
Generally, I think that if one spouse has made documentable sacrifices (in their career, or future prospects) in order to support the other’s career, then the financially successful spouse does owe some of their success to that support and therefore to the divorcing partner (who has in a sense contributed a share to that success.) Naturally if Frank’s financial position is weaker now than it has been, her share of that position is also lessened. You can tell what a romantic I am, since I am basically describing a marriage as forming a business partnership. However once assets have been divided (she has spun out into her own separate financial entity), I’d think that would cover any profit due to her contributions, and he therefore shouldn’t owe any further support.
This is of course assuming that no property agreements were signed, which is not true in their case (link below indicates previously agreed-upon documents give the Dodgers to Frank and the properties to his wife.) Assuming these are legally binding documents, I’d say the consideration is more than reasonable.
It all depends. If the marriage was short and there were no children involved, and if the poorer spouse didn’t contribute anything materially, then the poorer spouse should not get anything above whatever might have been agreed to in a nuptial agreement.
One thing many people don’t understand is that “social networking” is VERY valuable in elite circles — some “hostesses” spend a lot of time and energy hosting big parties and attending charity events, which helps the income-earning spouse immensely because of the PR. It’s important to understand that our values should not be imposed upon those who live an entirely different lifestyle that has its own set of rules.
briansd1
March 30, 2010 @
1:06 PM
CA renter wrote:
One thing [quote=CA renter]
One thing many people don’t understand is that “social networking” is VERY valuable in elite circles — some “hostesses” spend a lot of time and energy hosting big parties and attending charity events, which helps the income-earning spouse immensely because of the PR. [/quote]
What is hosting parties worth in economic terms? Can’t a rich person hire a beautiful model to do that for the night?
When to you go to restaurants in LA, you meet a lot of beautiful people who are very well-educated. They work in the service industry to pay the rent while they pursue careers in the entertainment industry. I’m sure that they’d be happy to host parties for hire.
NotCranky
March 30, 2010 @
1:43 PM
What about all that golfing What about all that golfing men have to do to work the links so to speak? That must be worth quite a bit…at least as much as hosting parties.
CA renter
March 30, 2010 @
4:22 PM
Russell wrote:What about all [quote=Russell]What about all that golfing men have to do to work the links so to speak? That must be worth quite a bit…at least as much as hosting parties.[/quote]
Talk to any of these successful executives, and they’ll tell you just that. The BIG money is made because of who you know and the personal connections you make. This is why their “rolodexes” are so valuable.
—————-
Brian,
It’s not about models throwing parties. It’s about **well-connected** socialites (who become and remain well connected because they attend other events with people in elite circles) who entertain the right people the right way. Very different.
ucodegen
March 29, 2010 @
11:21 PM
I don’t think that she
I don’t think that she contributed anything to the fortune.
-snark-
She surely did contribute to him making that fortune. He realized that he would quickly be in the poor house if he didn’t find a way to make more money. She was a motivational spender….
-/snark-
Casca
March 30, 2010 @
12:31 PM
The next time I feel like The next time I feel like getting married, I’m just going to find a woman that I don’t like, and buy her a house.
jpinpb
March 30, 2010 @
3:27 PM
Casca wrote:The next time I [quote=Casca]The next time I feel like getting married, I’m just going to find a woman that I don’t like, and buy her a house.[/quote]
LOL! Good one.
LuckyInOC
March 30, 2010 @
7:08 PM
Casca wrote:The next time I [quote=Casca]The next time I feel like getting married, I’m just going to find a woman that I don’t like, and buy her a house.[/quote]
This sounds like something TG would say…
LuckyInOC
Casca
March 31, 2010 @
1:57 PM
LuckyInOC wrote:Casca [quote=LuckyInOC][quote=Casca]The next time I feel like getting married, I’m just going to find a woman that I don’t like, and buy her a house.[/quote]
March 29, 2010 @ 3:22 PM
We had fun a debate about
We had fun a debate about marriage and children on another thread.
Now, in case of divorce, how much should the richer spouse pay up? What is enough in your view?
The McCourt divorce is entertaining to watch.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/03/mccourts-appear-at-hearing-over-spousal-support.html
March 29, 2010 @ 3:27 PM
I think that Frank McCourt
I think that Frank McCourt would have made his fortune with or without his wife.
I don’t think that she contributed anything to the fortune.
In my opinion Jamie should be provided a house to live by her husband. But it should be up to her to find a job like every one else and earn the money to maintain whatever house she gets.
March 29, 2010 @ 4:30 PM
Not enough information
Not enough information provided in this article for me to make an informed response. I am assuming children are not involved since none were mentioned.
Generally, I think that if one spouse has made documentable sacrifices (in their career, or future prospects) in order to support the other’s career, then the financially successful spouse does owe some of their success to that support and therefore to the divorcing partner (who has in a sense contributed a share to that success.) Naturally if Frank’s financial position is weaker now than it has been, her share of that position is also lessened. You can tell what a romantic I am, since I am basically describing a marriage as forming a business partnership. However once assets have been divided (she has spun out into her own separate financial entity), I’d think that would cover any profit due to her contributions, and he therefore shouldn’t owe any further support.
This is of course assuming that no property agreements were signed, which is not true in their case (link below indicates previously agreed-upon documents give the Dodgers to Frank and the properties to his wife.) Assuming these are legally binding documents, I’d say the consideration is more than reasonable.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/03/court-season-opener-monday-for-frank-and-jamie-mccourt.html
March 29, 2010 @ 5:08 PM
In most cases (but perhaps
In most cases (but perhaps not for the ultra-rich), it is much more expensive to support two separate households (after divorce) than one (in marriage). There are two places to rent, two places to furnish, two sets of utilities, etc.
For most normal people, these comprise at least 30% of annual income, so it is at least 30% more expensive to live apart than married and maintain the same lifestyle. This makes it patently unfair on most cases for one spouse to support the other spouse at the same lifestyle.
Even in cases where each spouse makes the same exact amount of income, it is impossible for each to maintain the same lifestyle separately.
March 29, 2010 @ 9:31 PM
hey i have an idea; what
hey i have an idea; what about a massive tax on divorce! make it sliding scale; has this tax ever been mentioned before? we have a marriage tax penalty, why not a divorce penalty!
April 1, 2010 @ 12:11 AM
scaredycat wrote:hey i have
[quote=scaredycat]hey i have an idea; what about a massive tax on divorce! make it sliding scale; has this tax ever been mentioned before? we have a marriage tax penalty, why not a divorce penalty![/quote]
what a great idea… Obama should implement this to raise money for healthcare
March 29, 2010 @ 11:53 PM
8bitnintendo wrote:Not enough
[quote=8bitnintendo]Not enough information provided in this article for me to make an informed response. I am assuming children are not involved since none were mentioned.
Generally, I think that if one spouse has made documentable sacrifices (in their career, or future prospects) in order to support the other’s career, then the financially successful spouse does owe some of their success to that support and therefore to the divorcing partner (who has in a sense contributed a share to that success.) Naturally if Frank’s financial position is weaker now than it has been, her share of that position is also lessened. You can tell what a romantic I am, since I am basically describing a marriage as forming a business partnership. However once assets have been divided (she has spun out into her own separate financial entity), I’d think that would cover any profit due to her contributions, and he therefore shouldn’t owe any further support.
This is of course assuming that no property agreements were signed, which is not true in their case (link below indicates previously agreed-upon documents give the Dodgers to Frank and the properties to his wife.) Assuming these are legally binding documents, I’d say the consideration is more than reasonable.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/03/court-season-opener-monday-for-frank-and-jamie-mccourt.html%5B/quote%5D
Agree 100% with this.
It all depends. If the marriage was short and there were no children involved, and if the poorer spouse didn’t contribute anything materially, then the poorer spouse should not get anything above whatever might have been agreed to in a nuptial agreement.
One thing many people don’t understand is that “social networking” is VERY valuable in elite circles — some “hostesses” spend a lot of time and energy hosting big parties and attending charity events, which helps the income-earning spouse immensely because of the PR. It’s important to understand that our values should not be imposed upon those who live an entirely different lifestyle that has its own set of rules.
March 30, 2010 @ 1:06 PM
CA renter wrote:
One thing
[quote=CA renter]
One thing many people don’t understand is that “social networking” is VERY valuable in elite circles — some “hostesses” spend a lot of time and energy hosting big parties and attending charity events, which helps the income-earning spouse immensely because of the PR. [/quote]
What is hosting parties worth in economic terms? Can’t a rich person hire a beautiful model to do that for the night?
When to you go to restaurants in LA, you meet a lot of beautiful people who are very well-educated. They work in the service industry to pay the rent while they pursue careers in the entertainment industry. I’m sure that they’d be happy to host parties for hire.
March 30, 2010 @ 1:43 PM
What about all that golfing
What about all that golfing men have to do to work the links so to speak? That must be worth quite a bit…at least as much as hosting parties.
March 30, 2010 @ 4:22 PM
Russell wrote:What about all
[quote=Russell]What about all that golfing men have to do to work the links so to speak? That must be worth quite a bit…at least as much as hosting parties.[/quote]
Talk to any of these successful executives, and they’ll tell you just that. The BIG money is made because of who you know and the personal connections you make. This is why their “rolodexes” are so valuable.
—————-
Brian,
It’s not about models throwing parties. It’s about **well-connected** socialites (who become and remain well connected because they attend other events with people in elite circles) who entertain the right people the right way. Very different.
March 29, 2010 @ 11:21 PM
I don’t think that she
-snark-
She surely did contribute to him making that fortune. He realized that he would quickly be in the poor house if he didn’t find a way to make more money. She was a motivational spender….
-/snark-
March 30, 2010 @ 12:31 PM
The next time I feel like
The next time I feel like getting married, I’m just going to find a woman that I don’t like, and buy her a house.
March 30, 2010 @ 3:27 PM
Casca wrote:The next time I
[quote=Casca]The next time I feel like getting married, I’m just going to find a woman that I don’t like, and buy her a house.[/quote]
LOL! Good one.
March 30, 2010 @ 7:08 PM
Casca wrote:The next time I
[quote=Casca]The next time I feel like getting married, I’m just going to find a woman that I don’t like, and buy her a house.[/quote]
This sounds like something TG would say…
LuckyInOC
March 31, 2010 @ 1:57 PM
LuckyInOC wrote:Casca
[quote=LuckyInOC][quote=Casca]The next time I feel like getting married, I’m just going to find a woman that I don’t like, and buy her a house.[/quote]
This sounds like something TG would say…
LuckyInOC[/quote]
Nah, TG is much smoother than that.