McCartney divorce hearing begins

[stan1980]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7236073.stm

So how much money does Heather Mills really deserve out of the divorce with Sir Paul McCartney?

In previous cases it has been known for judges to split assets 50-50, and it's even been known that up to a 1/3 of all future earnings have to be handed over for life AFTER a divorce? Is this really fair if it is quite obvious who has been earning the bulk of the money?

It looks unlikely that Heather Mills will get anywhere near half of Paul McCartney's estimated £850m fortune, but does she even deserve £50m considering she has quite a track record for being a gold digger?

 

[Bombila]

Does anyone besides Heather Mills and Paul McCartney care?

These are super rich people. Lawyers and judges will decide who gets what.

As for fairness in the splitting of assets, it's almost pointless to try to figure such values out for very wealthy people.

If you want to discuss married property rights, why not try it with ordinary wage earning people?

 

[stan1980]

If you want to discuss married property rights, why not try it with ordinary wage earning people?

Ok lets. Say a man (or woman) has a reasonably well paid job (say £100k/200k USD per annum). After 20 years of marriage, and quite a bit of equity built up, does the wife who has never done a days work deserve half of everything?

 

[flicka]

Ok lets. Say a man (or woman) has a reasonably well paid job (say £100k/200k USD per annum). After 20 years of marriage, and quite a bit of equity built up, does the wife who has never done a days work deserve half of everything?

You are probably talking about paid employment, not the work women do keep the home and raising the family. The tricky part about this is if the woman HAD worked outside the home and had a career she would be in a better position to support herself, while those women who "never did a days work" may suddenly find themselves middle aged and just a few years from retirement with an incomplete education and no employable no skills whatsoever.

It's important to remember that in the cases where the women is a homemaker it was most likely a mutual decision by the couple early in their marriage because it benefited both of them. I know my husband wouldn't be where he is today, a successful executive with a happy family, if he didn't have the luxury of someone like me doing all behind the scenes work. For the women this becomes the ultimate leap of faith that the relationship will last forever.

Would I deserve half of what we built together if we split? Most definitely.

 

[gwenmead]

After 20 years of marriage, and quite a bit of equity built up, does the wife who has never done a days work deserve half of everything?

Dude - being someone's wife IS work. Being a spouse in general is work. It's not the kind of work that you do outside the home and get paid for, but it's work anyway.

Wives have traditionally been responsible for maintaining their husbands' households, and bearing and raising children. Wives have also generally been considered responsible for doing the emotional work in a relationship as well. When you have the kind of marriage where the wife stays home in order to accomplish all this, that IS her job. And it's a tiring and often thankless one.

Moreover, a good many successful men have been able to be successful because they had wives to support them from behind the scenes. Community property laws are one way of acknowledging that the work a wife puts into her marriage has value, even if she never "worked" outside the home (and never got paid) at all. With community property laws on the books, that ensures that a stay-at-home wife will not get the financial shaft, should her marriage break up.

Note, of course, that community property laws apply equally to both spouses in a marriage, regardless of whether either one works outside the home. And of course the way actual marriages work is varied. Some are "traditional" and some are not. I put it in the context of "traditional" marriage, though, and mention wives in particular, both because your question is directed at wives, and because part of the original purpose of community property laws was to emphasize the value of a wife's contribution to a marriage in a day and age when "traditional" marriage was the only option for women.

I'd say if I spent 20 years of my life servicing a wealthy spouse, providing him with companionship, sex, a clean home, social contacts, a stable marriage, comfort, and possibly children, I'd bloody well be entitled to half his income and assets. As would a husband who spent 20 years doing the same for me.

 

[stan1980]

With all due respect, doing some cleaning,washing dishes, ironing shirts and looking after children isn't the same as going out doing a highly skilled, pressured, stressful job. If it were au pairs would be paid much more money. You can't really include sex or emotional support into monetary terms, as these in theory should benefit both sides. Also, no one is stopping a woman from going out and getting a career. If the couple do decide for one person to stay at home to sacrifice their career then maybe they should sign a mutual contract saying that eveything will be 50/50 in the case of a divorce, instead of 50/50 being the default in courts.

Woman (or men) definitely deserve a hefty chunk of the assets after a divorce, but 50% has always seemed a bit steep to me.

 

[gwenmead]

Stan, have you ever been married?

 

[stan1980]

Stan, have you ever been married?

Certainly not!

I wouldn't rule it out, but i can't imagine making a life long commitment in the near future. I know myself too well by now, so i think it is best to avoid any possibility of a messy divorce. I suppose in that sense, you could say the man or woman deserves to lose 50% as they knew what they were getting into.

 

[gwenmead]

Certainly not!

I wouldn't rule it out, but i can't imagine making a life long commitment in the near future. I know myself too well by now, so i think it is best to avoid any possibility of a messy divorce. I suppose in that sense, you could say the man or woman deserves to lose 50% as they knew what they were getting into.

Well... I've been married twice, divorced once. I've been a stay-at-home wife, and I've worked outside the home. The former was quite humiliating, for the very reason that people consider it unskilled labor, and thus worth very little. It's a bit like slavery, in that respect.

I suspect that au pairs and nannies actually get paid very little, not because the job isn't difficult (raising children is one of the most challenging jobs on the planet), but because the job is at market saturation. At least in part, anyway. I'd have to check with an economist on that...

I think it's good that you know yourself well enough to know that you shouldn't get married. Too many people go into it without thinking, because getting married is Just What People Do. If you know you're not into it, I don't recommend doing it.

 

[flicka]

With all due respect, doing some cleaning,washing dishes, ironing shirts and looking after children isn't the same as going out doing a highly skilled, pressured, stressful job. If it were au pairs would be paid much more money. You can't really include sex or emotional support into monetary terms, as these in theory should benefit both sides. Also, no one is stopping a woman from going out and getting a career. If the couple do decide for one person to stay at home to sacrifice their career then maybe they should sign a mutual contract saying that eveything will be 50/50 in the case of a divorce, instead of 50/50 being the default in courts.

Woman (or men) definitely deserve a hefty chunk of the assets after a divorce, but 50% has always seemed a bit steep to me.

Look at it this way, if you want a family and you wanted the freedom to pursue your career you will need someone to help you. Sure, you can do it alone but I guarentee you won't end up in the same place career wise or family wise as you would with a spouse. It's a tradeoff....you're success and a nice family too or just mediocre employment with kids raised in daycare.

My presence allowed my husband to not only devote 60+ hours a week to his job but also get additional education, including an MBA, that is directly responsible for his current position. Plus he has a couple of great kids and a well run home on top of all that. He got to "have it all" because of me. He would be floundering in middle management somewhere making far less money if he hadn't done what he did. See, I'm partially responsible for his success and deserving of half because our marriage is a partnership, something that allowed us to get to where we wanted to be. We figured we could only get here by making the choices we did and the lifestyle we now enjoy is our reward.

It is highly unlikely that I would ever be able to enjoy the same level of success at work as my husband if I had to start now. Not because I'm not capable or smart or hardworking, but because time and society are against me. It would be unfair for my husband to have one lifestyle while I had to settle for another because of money.

You may not like the idea but that's how life works. I suggest you not get married or have kids until you come to terms with exactly what this all means.

 

[FaithLikeARock]

With all due respect, doing some cleaning,washing dishes, ironing shirts and looking after children isn't the same as going out doing a highly skilled, pressured, stressful job. If it were au pairs would be paid much more money. You can't really include sex or emotional support into monetary terms, as these in theory should benefit both sides. Also, no one is stopping a woman from going out and getting a career. If the couple do decide for one person to stay at home to sacrifice their career then maybe they should sign a mutual contract saying that eveything will be 50/50 in the case of a divorce, instead of 50/50 being the default in courts.

Woman (or men) definitely deserve a hefty chunk of the assets after a divorce, but 50% has always seemed a bit steep to me.

Not stressful?! AHAHAHAHA!

I'm not married or a mother but I can see full well the stress that taking care of children along with keeping a sturdy house can build. Why is it people have this notion that unless you don't get paid, you're not working?

 

[Paulos23]

With all due respect, doing some cleaning,washing dishes, ironing shirts and looking after children isn't the same as going out doing a highly skilled, pressured, stressful job.

No, it is even more stressful then most jobs, and even more thankless. 50% is the least they deserve.

 

[stan1980]

No, it is even more stressful then most jobs, and even more thankless. 50% is the least they deserve.

I realise you and a lot of people here like to be seen as politically correct, but c'mon...

I'll accept that a woman (or a man) who has been married for 20 years and has stayed home raising the kids deserves at most 50%, although i just wont accept they've got a harder job. Anymore than 50% is just getting silly.

On another note, say there has been a nanny at home doing all the housework and looking after the kids throughout the marriage (maybe the kids are even sent to boarding school), and the woman has just lived a life of leisure. Do they still deserve 50%?

 

[Paulos23]

I realise you and a lot of people here like to be seen as politically correct, but c'mon...

Sorry, just thinking of the stuff I put my own mother through.

I'll accept that a woman (or a man) who has been married for 20 years and has stayed home raising the kids deserves at most 50%, although i just wont accept they've got a harder job. Anymore than 50% is just getting silly.

Well, maybe not. There is the case when both parents work and the woman still has to take care of the household. But then that sort of marrage I can't see lasting long....

On another note, say there has been a nanny at home doing all the housework and looking after the kids throughout the marriage (maybe the kids are even sent to boarding school), and the woman has just lived a life of leisure. Do they still deserve 50%?

Can't say that they do.

 

[FaithLikeARock]

I realise you and a lot of people here like to be seen as politically correct, but c'mon...

I'll accept that a woman (or a man) who has been married for 20 years and has stayed home raising the kids deserves at most 50%, although i just wont accept they've got a harder job. Anymore than 50% is just getting silly.

On another note, say there has been a nanny at home doing all the housework and looking after the kids throughout the marriage (maybe the kids are even sent to boarding school), and the woman has just lived a life of leisure. Do they still deserve 50%?

How many cases are there like the latter?

What about the situation where the husbands has an incredibly easy job where he works very few hours and when he comes home after a 3 hour shift does nothing but sit around and not help with the kids or the house. Would you say he deserves 50%

 

[stan1980]

How many cases are there like the latter?

What about the situation where the husbands has an incredibly easy job where he works very few hours and when he comes home after a 3 hour shift does nothing but sit around and not help with the kids or the house. Would you say he deserves 50%

Why wouldn't he?

 

[flicka]

When you start discussing the uber rich all bets are off. Those kinds of property divisions are entirely contract based. Whether someone "deserves" something becomes completely irrelevant. And I should point out the opposite is also true, the joining together of two people can bring wealth, property, power and position to someone for no reason other than they said "I do". So it cut's both ways.

 

[LLWHA]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7236073.stm

So how much money does Heather Mills really deserve out of the divorce with Sir Paul McCartney?

In previous cases it has been known for judges to split assets 50-50, and it's even been known that up to a 1/3 of all future earnings have to be handed over for life AFTER a divorce? Is this really fair if it is quite obvious who has been earning the bulk of the money?

It looks unlikely that Heather Mills will get anywhere near half of Paul McCartney's estimated £850m fortune, but does she even deserve £50m considering she has quite a track record for being a gold digger?

Bible says she should get zero.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

While she is being ridiculously greedy, I don't think anyone is totally innocent when it comes to having this sort of money. Sure, we should be asking what she's going to do with £50m. But I'm also wondering what on earth he's doing with £850m while people are starving to death.

And if you think this means I'm saying it is evil to be that rich, the answer is yes, I am.

With all due respect, doing some cleaning,washing dishes, ironing shirts and looking after children isn't the same as going out doing a highly skilled, pressured, stressful job. If it were au pairs would be paid much more money. You can't really include sex or emotional support into monetary terms, as these in theory should benefit both sides. Also, no one is stopping a woman from going out and getting a career. If the couple do decide for one person to stay at home to sacrifice their career then maybe they should sign a mutual contract saying that eveything will be 50/50 in the case of a divorce, instead of 50/50 being the default in courts.

Woman (or men) definitely deserve a hefty chunk of the assets after a divorce, but 50% has always seemed a bit steep to me.

How long have you spent looking after children? How much of that time was spent looking after children while keeping a clean house, putting a decent hot meal on the table for everyone every single day and doing all the household chores for several people?

 

[QuakerOats]

How long have you spent looking after children? How much of that time was spent looking after children while keeping a clean house, putting a decent hot meal on the table for everyone every single day and doing all the household chores for several people?

Obviously not long, or much, if at all.

I really just feel bad for Paul because, from my perspective, at least, Heather was kind of like the 'rebound gal' after Linda's passing-she was merely someone to hang on to, to be there for him. I'd feel worse for her if I didn't believe she was a gold-digger.