To think divorces shouldn’t be 50/50

[Custardforbreakfast]

It has come to my attention that most of the threads here about divorce/separation always point out that divorces are 50/50 (for starters).

I come from a country where one can choose at the registry if you want shared or split assets. I’ve always thought split is the way to go as honestly whatever you make in your life should be yours and not to share (even in a marriage)

My grandparents were married with shared assets and it’s absolutely broken my family now that the they’ve both passed away. My parents on the other hand married with separate assets and divorced a few years ago, it was the least complicated separation I have seen as there was no fighting over things. It makes my cringe when people on here say you should take everything from your husband or make sure to take your half or even more if you can

AIBU to think that not everything needs to be shared? Even in marriage.

I agree with notbeingrobbed. Lots of sahp wouldn’t ever be earning anything like 50% of their dh salary. Being a sahp may be an important role but it’s not a highly skilled or particularly lucrative one.

I am also the rp and the higher earner. As a single parent I manage a high pressure job and my family. It’s not impossible (but it is difficult) so I don’t agree with all the posters who think it’s impossible for a high earner to manage childcare on their own. Many single mothers and indeed other mothers do manage it.

Also I don’t see that childcare should be anything to do with marriage. I would like to see mothers who are taking on all the sacrifices and costs of bringing up children being awarded a proper financial settlement for that, married or not.

Here you choose whether to share assets or not by eother getting married or not

That's not true - not if they can prove residency and financial contribution (paying bills, buying a lightbulb, painting the doorframe etc - it can still be 50/50 - even a house which was yours before you met can be split if residency is proven - so if you are in a relationship and living with someone who insists that you have mail delivered elsewhere, and no bills in your name - Beware, they are planning ahead - post you!

My ex husband was a thief and a liar so definitely should change.

I agree with notbeingrobbed. Lots of sahp wouldn’t ever be earning anything like 50% of their dh salary.

Why not? The majority of sahp are women. Are you saying that women are less capable of earning a high salary than men? Some would probably earn more if they didn't have children. Pretty sure that I would have been in a higher earner.

It is not the 50/50 split that is the problems. It is the people inheriting. They are fighting over the assets. I would call that greed. Also the grandparents could have had a more clear will. There are issues that are not always the 50/50 rule.

My husband works and I am home with 3 children, who were regularly hospitalise, inconveniently, not at the same time. One of us could not work. I was breastfeeding and earned less so, here I am 12 years later. No pension, no savings. If we divorced, under your suggestion, I would be destitute while my husband had it all. There has to be a partnership to have children.

Divorce deal will give each person a reasonable future re assets. So if you’re the bigger earner, you will hand out more, regardless of who owned assets originally. Under 18 children in family home will also affect decision.

@PyongyangKipperbang your math in your earlier post on page 1 is all wrong.

You suggest that Parent 1 earns 50k Parent 2 earns 50k They have a baby. Childcare is £500 a week.
Yes, 4.5 years x 100k = 450k less 4 yrs childcare at 500pds = 104k.
So total gross income = 346k not 358k.

But how do you get that if the DH's salary increases by 10k each year gross income will be 660k?
50k+60k+70k+80k+90k = 350k

So actually it's basically even. Only now you've got a situation where the family relies on one person for all their salary which increases risk whereas if both partners work they can step up their career as kids get older!

Is 10k increase year after year reasonable even as an assumption

@windygallows regardless of the math it makes little financial sense for both parents being hindered climbing the career ladder by not doing the over time, going in on the weekend or midnight testings if it is possible for just one parent to focus on the child and home care

Women’s work at home is very undervalued and advantage is taken of this. Also, when the value of what women do at home is estimated the tax and NI should be added in since, if you paid another person to do what the SAHW does you would pay it out of taxed income from which NI had been also deducted and if you employed, say, a nanny, you would pay pension costs on their salary too.

A SAHP saves on a nanny, cleaning, PA work, gardening, decorating, maintenance, taxiing, and budgeting. All these, with tax and NI added, should be taken into account when costing the value of a SAHP and
what they are worth.

Additionally, their hourly rate should depend on their level of qualification. More effective workers command higher salaries.

I think my worth to my DH now I am retired from teaching is very high as I run the ship of home like a captain. I am the CEO of a high worth establishment and refuse to be undersold. On the one occasion I had to employ someone else to do something I couldn’t ( paint the upstairs windows) I bargained the price down by £1000 when my DH wouldn’t have had the time or the nerve.

The value of each partner’s work must be taken into account when splitting assets and, while the STH partner does not earn a paid, taxed salary, their efforts are easily worth half of the pot assuming they do not sit on the sofa watching Bargain Hunt every day.

There is absolutely no logic behind 50/50.

It should be based on the children’s reasonable needs first, then a decent but not extravagant lifestyle for both partners and finally on compensation for (again reasonable) lost earnings and lost potential earnings for a SAHP.

This could well end up being 50:50 but would not pay gold diggers a ridiculous salary merely for marrying someone far richer or with far more financial potential. There is no reason an adult’s lifestyle should be maintained to the grave because they married and then divorced.

I am always amazed this is thought of as fair as England is almost unique in taking this approach, why London is called the divorce capital of the world.

@larrygrylls the children's life is to change as little as possible other then the fact that they are in a one parent household etc. It is not fair to expect them to move house or change school. Who legally gets what is designed to ensure that. If they had one consistent parent at home looking after their needs that needs to remain the same. Same goes for the spouse to a certain extend. Why should the stay at home parent who made sacrifices and looked after the kids and house change their life just because their partner wants a divorce if they had done nothing to deserve such treatment

It is a huge assumption that they ‘made sacrifices’.

Reasonable allowances should be made for a transition period but going back to work is a fair expectation. Children will not suffer because of it.

And, after the children are 18, each adult should provide for themselves (you know, like adults...)

@Moonchild1987 actually the maths here are really compelling because the original post suggested that income would double if the man only worked and actually they are similar. Also the idea of a 10k pay pay raise is probably unlikely.

Here the maths actually show that the family will probably be better off in the long long term having two parents working. Putting all your eggs in one basket and relying on one income from one source for a whole family is much riskier and a lot of stress on one person. Much better to share the load.

I think if you don't want to join as an equal partnership, if you want to keep your finances separate that's ok - the law allows for this, just don't say I do. It's really that simple - marriage is an economic institution, it arranges the legal side of a romantic partnership - if you don't agree with the terms of the contract before you sign them you have a choice don't sign! Keep your assets separate and keep as much money as you want to yourself...no one has to get married, there's no stigma, it's perfectly fine and modern.
Or maybe we should have a new contract, a "Marriage Lite version 2.1" - new vows saying we keep everything separate, we promise not to ask for more than we had, we could remove a lot of troublesome promises...you'd get the big day and the ring - those seem to be the most important thing, I'm sure we could come up with something that focused on keeping all your stuff your own - without sounding too mean or cynical.

@windygallows that is assuming the parent that stays at home returns to full time work as normal and are still able to work over time, weekends etc. Someone does have to take care of the kids so it's one of the parents that does it unless they outsource the care. Someone needs to get the kids to and back home from various after school lessons or clubs, supervise homework, make sure the house is clean, the kids are all on schedule and looked after etc. These things don't magically do themselves so that would mean in most cases at least the other parent is working part time so no they would not be on the same career path any more. On top of that if both parents work it means evenings and weekends are spend doing chores and house things rather then being done during the day so the time spend together as the family is kept for doing fun things together

One reason we don't have clear laws (50/50 is only a very small starting point guideline - my husband got closer to 60% and plenty of people get more or less) is because every case differs.

Plenty of rich stay at home mothers have a nanny, gardener, cleaner, private schools, night nannies. They are not all helping their husbands and taking on all the DIY by any means.

Everyone is assuming that someone has to stay home. They don’t and I think it’s a growing rarity. Most young couples both work. I am middle aged but a bit ahead of the curve. And 50:50 is wrong because I have worked outside the home AND done the “wife work” and now I am paying my lower earning ex money to clear off. I believe that I should keep a sum that reflects my higher salary, end of. If courts really wanted domestic chores valued then I should get even more, say 80%, because I did most of the domestic tasks as well as working! Instead, my ex gets more than half as even my pension is stripped away.

There is lots of staggeringly old-fashioned thinking here - the idea women must stay home and that a home cannot function without a SAHP. This actually doesn’t help working women because the people (men) living with these arrangements are often the ones deciding on salaries and it explains the gender pay gap. The old-fashioned men with wives at home think their female co-workers don’t need an equal salary and so families with working mums lose out again.

I wouldn’t want anyone who has truly given up work for their kids to be abandoned with no money. So maybe in those cases the couple should sign an agreement at that point. Agree on the worth of the work, the time period for staying home and not seeking employment and a notional “salary”. Then split all household costs, deducting them from the “salary” and each partner then keeps whatever is left from their own income. When the children reach a certain agreed age the SAHP should again seek work. Each individual should be free to build yo their own savings.

The current arrangement actually reduces women to what they have always been - mere chattels only worth as much as the man they married. Not individuals with their own earnings, savings and opinions. Marry an alcoholic or gambler or sex addict and however much you strive yourself you will be dragged down to their level. Needless to say, such men don’t advertise their vices before marriage.

BTW the people saying if you don’t like it don’t marry are wrong. I know of a divorced woman who subsequently had a live-in partner move in to the house she owned outright. They have now split and he is claiming a stake in the house.

The current situation actually makes it almost impossible for anyone of any means to have a relationship. The law needs urgent reform!

If courts really wanted domestic chores valued then I should get even more, say 80%, because I did most of the domestic tasks as well as working! Instead, my ex gets more than half as even my pension is stripped away.

The data doesn't support this setup as the norm. Most women work AND do the majority of the childcare/cleaning and mental/emotional labour within their marriages.
The problem is not with pregnancy, birth and child rearing, it is with the belief that that work is worthless, an attitude clearly reflected in many of the posts on this thread. I am really saddened so many women feel that raising their OWN children is such a pointless endeavor. Yay for capitalism I guess.

Sorry I don't agree. If one parent has given up their career to raise the children they should be entitled to their share.
It also means the party who has given up their career is going to find it very difficult to find well paid work after divorce and will be in a very difficult position or even unable to support themselves.
If there are no children then YANBU.

BTW the people saying if you don’t like it don’t marry are wrong. I know of a divorced woman who subsequently had a live-in partner move in to the house she owned outright. They have now split and he is claiming a stake in the house. On what grounds is he claiming his stake - squatter's rights? Or is this Scotland - they have different laws regarding non marriage partnerships.

What I am trying to say is what if neither partner has given up a career - both have worked but one earned more (in my case the female). Why not get back what you put in?

@notinmyduty I don’t know all the details of the case but as someone suggested here earlier, if you have contributed to the household - paying for electricity or water or even painting a door - you may have a claim. I think he’s claiming on that basis.

Having seen how it works I will never have a life-in partner of any sort again. I cannot risk losing what remains of my assets - money I need to raise and protect my children!! I’ve told them to never marry, although they still think it’s all about hearts and flower. That belief is so deeply entrenched in society.

There is also the assumption that it is all about sahp issues, I would imagine that part time work is more of an issue. Many women I know go part time when their children are young in order to facilitate childcare. I left a well paid management role , a decision we made as a married couple, and after maternity leave returned to a part time less senior role. This was done as a partnership . Is it only women who have to have responsibility for decisions made within a marriage, are men unable to understand the consequences of these decisions? DH left the house at 5.30 yesterday, and returned at 8.30, he has frequent overnight stays, this is not standard in many senior roles. Both of us can't do that.