House division

[Newyearbee]

Should the woman typically get a larger slice of the house division if she has worked part-time for many years to raise the kids or is 50/50 usually still the case? All other assets eg pension split equally.

Generally is that both parties are housed. So will depend on how much money you are splitting.
Not having worked doesn’t ‘trump’ having worked.

Not necessarily no

will depend on what both parties earnings are now and future potential, what their respective housing needs are, what total asset pot is. Eg if it’s 1m and 500k can house both that’s what it would likely be , if there’s only 80k of equity then o e party might get higher share depending on other points

The idea is that the divorce will leave you “equal”. But context is everything when it comes to determining what is equal.

If you have two people who are the same age and who are healthy then pension pots will be equalised. But if, one party is 67 and other is 40, that’s nowhere near a given. Similarly health or a caring need which might impair someone’s income could have an impact on what equal means.

The length of the marriage might play a factor in how pensions are split as well. I would expect there to be a strong argument not to share a large pension accrued before a short marriage even if there are children.

You should also be mindful to think in terms of income rather than salaries. It is money you receive (or could receive if you claim benefits or work full time) that matters. Someone can earn double what the other makes but take home more or less the same because of tax thresholds which mean they pay 40-60% tax.

You can't earn double when compared to someone else and take home more or less the same.
Tax is progressive.
You won't take home double but it certainly will be far more than the lower salary

i think lemon was saying that a lower salary person may also have top up benefits on top of salary so when that is added to their salary their monthly income may not be as differential to a higher earning net income per month

Are you allowed (or is it morally right) to rely on benefits as your future income when divorcing if there are sufficient assets to divide more fairly to give the lower earning person more stability?

Yes you are allowed.
totally situation dependent

divorce won’t hand one party ( the lower earner) all the assets nor provide income via spousal in most cases. So lower earner can try to increase earnings, use benefits top ups etc . Of course a settlement will try to balance out needs /assets and incomes but often there is not enough to go round and one party won’t be awarded 100% just because they are a lower earner

I am pointing out that someone who earns double or even triple a medium or low salary may have a lot of deductions for tax, NI and pension. Conversely the person on a low income or a medium income may well be entitled to benefits and won’t pay as much tax. So when it comes to income, the difference isn’t one person receiving 2 or 3 times more.

This!!! Very shabby to rely on benefits unless you really need to and genuinely can’t get a job.

Yes but it’s also not right ( in most cases) that the one that ones loses all their assets to find one that doesn’t.

of course there should be protections in place for genuine sahms but the other party shouldn’t have to lose everything nor find an ongoing choice to not work ( as example)

however this doesn’t answer op particular question - to which the answer is no not necessarily

Marriage is a contract.
No-one is losing all ‘their’ assets as they are joint.
The WOHP parent who was able to work F/T to accrue assets precisely because a SAHP facilitated this by looking after the home and kids. Therefore they need to share the assets because not all contributions to the family/life are purely monetary.

A divorce is about a fair share.
it is not about one who earns all the money swanning off into the sunset with all assets leaving the other one destitute.

Benefits should not be relied upon. They can change.

Again, this about where there is enough assets that needs can be accommodated.

Aah that tired old line again.

i didn’t say a sahm should get nothing. Hence the line that there should be protections in place. But equally it’s not right that one party loses everything to ‘compensate’ the other. especially in cases where one party refuses to work either during the marriage or after and that’s where the state picks up the tab

Marriage is indeed a form of a contract. Divorce is a mechanism that is used to end that contract. They deal almost entirely with money. Yet people very rarely discuss what this means in relation to life’s big events like having children, buying homes, career changes or getting divorced. They don’t discuss it before, during or after they make huge changes to their lives.

Since it is a legal contract would make sense for mandatory pre-nups starting what each has brought into the marriage, that could then be ignored in any divorce settlement.
Anything accrued during marriage could then be shared on the case of a divorce.
Going hand in hand with financial education for both parties so that if one party stops work to look after DC, all assets are joint and transparent.