At the other end of the scale, we something we might call "Priority poker" or "Privilege Poker".
The rules appear to be:
A. In a divorce, the wife gets half of the husband's hard-earned, plus a proportion of his income for the foreseeable future (so overall she gets more than half).
B. Land 'wealth' ranks above earned wealth; and inherited land wealth ranks above land which you have bought out of your own earned income.
So what happens in a divorce case where the bulk of the husband's assets consist of inherited land wealth (which the husband's father bought out of his hard-earned)? Who gets priority - wife qua woman (Rule A) or husband qua landed gentry (Rule B)?
Find out here.
----------------------------------
Spotter's Badge: Physiocrat.
The Mirror Men
1 hour ago
17 comments:
If whilst married to my wife I were to make a million pounds I could understand why she gets half of it on divorce.
However if I had a million pounds before we got married (inherited or not property or not) why she get any if we divorce?
and inherited land wealth ranks above land which you have bought out of your own earned income.
All land purchased is the purchase of stolen property.
That is, all community created increases in its value all the way back to when it was worth nothing to anyone.
They cannot start out an argument based on a false premise and expect to reach certainty and expect to remain credible.
So if they genuinely oppose private property in land then their argument here is without support and they must find another way.
for you'r analysis to be true, the Judge would have too rule differntly if the land was purchased, rather than iherited by the husband. I cant find anything in the article that clearly answers this.
Anon, why?
RS, the whole thing is based on false premises.
Den, I think the clue is in the first sentence:
"A wife is not entitled to a £7 million share of her husband’s £24 million fortune after 25 years of marriage because he inherited it from his father, a divorce judge has ruled."
Anonymous, a marriage is a trust were both sets of assets are merged.
ON divorce this is split.
I cannot see why the income stream of one partner continues after divorce however.
AC1
This post is based on, erm, odd premises.
For one, English law almost totally rejects the concept of alimony (as opposed to maintenance payments for kids).
For two, it's now an established concept in English law that the wife is *only* eligible for a share of wealth generated during the marriage, not beforehand. See: Heather McCartney's settlement.
So yes, of course the wife doesn't get the house - but nor would she get his money if he'd been a multi-millionaire off his own back when they married.
(relatedly, I assume everyone knows the joke about the injured South African miner?)
John B; maybe, but
1. If wifey automatically gets kids, plus the house for her and kids to live in, plus generous maintenance for kids, this is as good as alimony.
2. If you own a business, the courts value this on the basis of a price-earnings ratio and wifey gets (say) half of this (as well as the house and half of non-business assets). So if your business makes £100,000 a year and wifey gets half the shares or half the capitalised value of those shares in cash, that's much the same as giving her £50,000 a year.
3. Heather Mills didn't stand a chance, as it was Gold Digging Ex-Soft-Porn-Star versus National- Treasure-Sir-Paul.
But you make the same assumption as everybody else: husband has to hand over half the hard-earned money but very little of the windfall gains he makes. What about a lottery win? Does that rank as hard-earned or protected windfall?
Is the law, justice, inherently though?
If not all bets are off.
So why do people who have sworn solemn oaths, before their peers, not do the honourable thing when they dishonour their peers by breaking that Oath. A double dip of dishonour to their community.
Both sides must be dishonorable and the law should judge them equally, by confiscating everything and giving it all to the common fund.
Even if one side can be proven completely innocent.
Sound though I hope to always be, there are times when one does not have to buy into Marx wholesale to nevertheless suspect that the ruling class looks out for its own.
Robin is definitely a Communist - big C.
I have a rather novel idea, (for men) find a good woman, fall in love, buy a HOME, raise and nurture children and live together happily ever after.
Listening to you lot the first and second steps would be an impossibility you're too much in love with yourselves.
Anon, nope, you're far closer to Communist that Robin is. I also detect some Fascist overtones and a lot of bitterness in your comments.
"all land purchased is the purchase of stolen property"
OK, not in the slightest bit communistic.
yet,
wanting to settle down with a good woman and live happily ever after is Fascist (with a capital F)
and,
being happy with my lot is to be bitter.
It's the first time I have ever used it but for you - lol.
Yeah anon has been on my blog doing the same stuff I think. Or his cousin .
Being called all sorts of preposterous names is a good signal of the mental state of someone in a deep state of denial. The Matrix has them!
What's good for the recipient of these attacks is you know for certain you have hit their most precious spot. A place so low they do not want anyone to see.
You know, that they know, that you know, you have rumbled them. So they must attack and discredit.
I sympathise with them truly. They are not free people. And will try to take others with them for comfort.
Homeownerism is littered with such cases as MW well knows to his constant frustration.
The commie label is the most darkly amusing. Nothing could be clearer than that true supporters of LVT are more true free traders than anyone as stated here:
http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/George/grgPFT26.html#Chapter 26
Anon, your comments confirm that you are indeed a embittered Commie-Fascist.
Like most people, I subscribe to the view that finding a job, getting married, settling down, buying a house, having kids is what Most People Want. I've done it myself, for example.
But it's the Home-Owner-Ist/Socialist system in which you so delight which prevents young people from doing all this - the ridiculous taxes on jobs and output, the ridiculously high house prices, the NIMBY planning laws, the massive public sector debt which future generations will have to pay off etc.
RS, I don't think that most Homeys "know" anything apart from high house prices are A Good Thing and land owners deserve subsidies and special treatment.
Once anybody questions any of this, they go completely mental and start waffling on about 'love of a good woman' and so on.
Mw agreed. Im trying to point out the mental disease and its effects.
The majority of people do not recognize what you are saying, simply because the majority of people do not think.
To them, whatever is, is right. It continues to appear so until its injustice has been pointed out repeatedly.
In general, they are ready to crucify whoever first attempts this.'
The only defense for this hypocrisy is attack of the most cowardly kind. Im surprised they don't call us pedophiles yet.
Of course, the reverse is also true: feckless man marries rich(ish) woman with good job and a house. They have kids, wifey cannot work full time any more, gets fed up with feckless husband not bringing in any money, kicks him out, husband goes for the full 50%.
Happened to many people I know.
Post a Comment