12/9/10

I have spoken candidly in the past and will gladly do so again, about my misadventures in the world of marriage. It's a world many foolish men enter, but few ever leave financially unscathed. Today, we look at yet another nail in the coffin of this once noble and righteous institution.

One year ago, Stacey Napp founded Balance Point. Not surprisingly, with money from her own divorce settlement. Balance Point is a divorce investment fund. It essentially ponies up its legal services for free (under the guise of a financial investment) and takes a percentage of the winnings, pardon... settlement .

Not shockingly, Ms. Napp's a career long finance professional with a Juris Doctor in tow. I suggest giving her a good thought the next time you're wondering why Wall Street is so fervently demonized in the media and why the word Bankster has become part of our modern lexicon.

It ain't all about the Bulge Brackets... it's about the idea that finance professionals are soulless, unscrupulous vultures willing to destroy people's lives for an extra penny on the dollar. That having been said, here's Ms. Napp's take on her noble project:

Everybody knows somebody where at the end of the day, the divorce was not equitable. We want to help those people, the underdog, to make sure they get their fair share. It furthers the concept of putting both spouses on an equal playing field.

Yeah, Stace...every man I know who's ever gotten a divorce has gotten robbed, raped and beaten by thugs like you. What equal playing field are you talking about, exactly?

The one where saying I do instantly entitles you to my blood, sweat and years?

The one where I can lose half just by looking at the nanny sideways and the one where you can hop from pool boy to gardner to mailman and still get cashed out proper?

Word to the Wise...

You can think of me what you want. Most of you guys are still at the age where you think the rules don't apply to you. Just remember that you've been warned. Marriage in the United States is a lose-lose proposition for the overwhelming majority of men.

Maybe you get to escape a fate of pocket siphoning, but chances are that you will be paying for your wife every step of the way. The bill will just come due after the best years of your life are behind you and she's well past her expiration date.

Modern day marriage is just another way of taxing hard working, successful and ambitious men. If you are really intent on getting married, do it offshore, somewhere where the law is not designed to steal from you as it is here.

Or better yet, start your own Divorce Fund or become a liquidity provider for Ms. Napp's. I guess this is your best method of hedging risk in a world gone completely batshit.

Comments (55)

12/9/10

Well done sir, well done.

12/9/10

I don't know what the practical limitations are but perhaps insurance companies could start a new line a products devoted to divorce insurance. Structure the product like a CDS. The buyer pays a premium every month and in the event of the a divorce there is a lump sum payout, otherwise, the buyer keeps paying the premium. It doesn't fix the inherent problems in the instituition of marriage but it could mitigate the financial impact on the party getting screwed

12/9/10

if only there was a way to hide a large portion of your income, stash it away somewhere just in case things head south, now that would be a very successful business wouldn't it?

12/9/10

I have never heard of offshore marriages, but I am intrigued. Off the top of your head, do you know where the best place to do this is? Obviously it has to seem romantic or she won't go for it I feel.

12/9/10

between you and Eddie feeding me this shit every week I think I will likely never get married...or if I do I will be shitting my pants all the way down the aisle.

Midas, you were married?

12/9/10
WallStreetOasis.com:

between you and Eddie feeding me this shit every week I think I will likely never get married...or if I do I will be shitting my pants all the way down the aisle.

Midas, you were married?

Yes...to your whole post.

12/9/10
WallStreetOasis.com:

between you and Eddie feeding me this shit every week I think I will likely never get married...or if I do I will be shitting my pants all the way down the aisle.

Midas, you were married?

+1 to that, Patrick. Between Eddie/Midas/everyone else I speak with.... I think I'd rather swallow a bag of needles than take the plunge. Nice work Midas - you have kept me a believer.

"Jesus, he's like a gremlin; comes with instructions and shit"

12/9/10

There's no such thing as an offshore marriage. Even if you got married outside the country, assuming you live in the United States, the US will have jurisdiction over your marriage and the state's (divorce law goes by state) divorce laws will apply. Sometimes couples battle over what state to file the divorce proceedings in, since again, the laws vary from state to state, but that can only be done if there is marital property in both states, or a prenup says what state any divorce proceedings would occur in, etc.

You can't just fly to the Cayman Islands, get married, and then fly back and pretend like you're somehow under Cayman Islands' marriage laws (I have no idea where the lax marriage laws are, just saying).

Consultant to a Fortune 50 Company

12/9/10
alexpasch:

There's no such thing as an offshore marriage. Even if you got married outside the country, assuming you live in the United States, the US will have jurisdiction over your marriage and the state's (divorce law goes by state) divorce laws will apply. Sometimes couples battle over what state to file the divorce proceedings in, since again, the laws vary from state to state, but that can only be done if there is marital property in both states, or a prenup says what state any divorce proceedings would occur in, etc.

You can't just fly to the Cayman Islands, get married, and then fly back and pretend like you're somehow under Cayman Islands' marriage laws (I have no idea where the lax marriage laws are, just saying).

Incorrect

12/9/10
Midas Mulligan Magoo:
alexpasch:

There's no such thing as an offshore marriage. Even if you got married outside the country, assuming you live in the United States, the US will have jurisdiction over your marriage and the state's (divorce law goes by state) divorce laws will apply. Sometimes couples battle over what state to file the divorce proceedings in, since again, the laws vary from state to state, but that can only be done if there is marital property in both states, or a prenup says what state any divorce proceedings would occur in, etc.

You can't just fly to the Cayman Islands, get married, and then fly back and pretend like you're somehow under Cayman Islands' marriage laws (I have no idea where the lax marriage laws are, just saying).

Incorrect

Example?

Consultant to a Fortune 50 Company

12/9/10
alexpasch:
Midas Mulligan Magoo:
alexpasch:

There's no such thing as an offshore marriage. Even if you got married outside the country, assuming you live in the United States, the US will have jurisdiction over your marriage and the state's (divorce law goes by state) divorce laws will apply. Sometimes couples battle over what state to file the divorce proceedings in, since again, the laws vary from state to state, but that can only be done if there is marital property in both states, or a prenup says what state any divorce proceedings would occur in, etc.

You can't just fly to the Cayman Islands, get married, and then fly back and pretend like you're somehow under Cayman Islands' marriage laws (I have no idea where the lax marriage laws are, just saying).

Incorrect

Example?

me

12/9/10
Midas Mulligan Magoo:
alexpasch:
Midas Mulligan Magoo:
alexpasch:

There's no such thing as an offshore marriage. Even if you got married outside the country, assuming you live in the United States, the US will have jurisdiction over your marriage and the state's (divorce law goes by state) divorce laws will apply. Sometimes couples battle over what state to file the divorce proceedings in, since again, the laws vary from state to state, but that can only be done if there is marital property in both states, or a prenup says what state any divorce proceedings would occur in, etc.

You can't just fly to the Cayman Islands, get married, and then fly back and pretend like you're somehow under Cayman Islands' marriage laws (I have no idea where the lax marriage laws are, just saying).

Incorrect

Example?

me

I don't know what your personal situation is/was, but I think your advice is misguided for the typical individual; per my talking with my divorce lawyer friend (see my other post). Divorce law when going international can get really complicated and expensive. My guess is, that for the typical individual, you are more likely to just drive up legal fees and not get any additional benefit that a good prenup in the US could already give you.

Also, you open yourself up to regulatory risk and a whole bunch of other "hidden" risks. What if the laws abroad change? What if laws here change regarding these offshore marriages? That would be similar to how US citizens got hosed when they hid assets offshore in Switzerland for tax reasons. It seems like it worked out for you, but I don't think it's good advice for your typical individual and I think most divorce attorneys would agree with me. My advice is simply to go see a very good family law attorney before you get married and see if they advise for an offshore marriage or a prenup.

Consultant to a Fortune 50 Company

12/9/10
alexpasch:
Midas Mulligan Magoo:
alexpasch:
Midas Mulligan Magoo:
alexpasch:

There's no such thing as an offshore marriage. Even if you got married outside the country, assuming you live in the United States, the US will have jurisdiction over your marriage and the state's (divorce law goes by state) divorce laws will apply. Sometimes couples battle over what state to file the divorce proceedings in, since again, the laws vary from state to state, but that can only be done if there is marital property in both states, or a prenup says what state any divorce proceedings would occur in, etc.

You can't just fly to the Cayman Islands, get married, and then fly back and pretend like you're somehow under Cayman Islands' marriage laws (I have no idea where the lax marriage laws are, just saying).

Incorrect

Example?

me

I don't know what your personal situation is/was, but I think your advice is misguided for the typical individual; per my talking with my divorce lawyer friend (see my other post). Divorce law when going international can get really complicated and expensive. My guess is, that for the typical individual, you are more likely to just drive up legal fees and not get any additional benefit that a good prenup in the US could already give you.

Also, you open yourself up to regulatory risk and a whole bunch of other "hidden" risks. What if the laws abroad change? What if laws here change regarding these offshore marriages? That would be similar to how US citizens got hosed when they hid assets offshore in Switzerland for tax reasons. It seems like it worked out for you, but I don't think it's good advice for your typical individual and I think most divorce attorneys would agree with me. My advice is simply to go see a very good family law attorney before you get married and see if they advise for an offshore marriage or a prenup.

There's always risk, prenups are a joke, lawyers make a living of convincing people that only they can interpret the binding legalese which is available to us all and the amount of times per day I get schooled by WSO kiddies who talk about it while I lived it is funnier than any comedy I've seen in years.

The purpose of the OP is to get guys thinking of what may or may not be waiting for them on the other side of the next set of zeroes in their bank account.

Food for thought is meant to be digested slowly, not critiqued before it has had a chance to cleanse the palate.

12/9/10

I think there is an insurance you can purchase for divorce. Like you pay certain amount money every month and if you get divorce, they will cover the legal fees. But the insurance won't cover if you get divorce in the first 2 years. I guess you really have to plan ahead if you want to use that. lol

Best Response
12/9/10

For some reason my girlfriend gets mad at me every time I send her articles like these.

CompBanker

12/9/10
CompBanker:

For some reason my girlfriend gets mad at me every time I send her articles like these.

at least now I know who the death threat was from.

12/9/10
CompBanker:

For some reason my girlfriend gets mad at me every time I send her articles like these.

If I had any credits left, you sir, would be awarded one.

12/9/10

What if a woman cuts her career short to raise the kids? Is she not entitled to half then? Women that go back into the workforce after child-rearing are usually generally limited and lose up to 70% of their pay that they would have had they not quit.

I'm genuinely curious to hear this argument, and suspect that couples in the higher tax brackets have very different experiences than people in the lower brackets.

12/9/10
AnonIcelandicBanker:

What if a woman cuts her career short to raise the kids? Is she not entitled to half then? Women that go back into the workforce after child-rearing are usually generally limited and lose up to 70% of their pay that they would have had they not quit.

I'm genuinely curious to hear this argument, and suspect that couples in the higher tax brackets have very different experiences than people in the lower brackets.

hmmmm, that is a good point. Personally I will NEVER EVER cut my career for kids. I believe having-it-all is possible.

12/9/10
nonfatlatte:

hmmmm, that is a good point. Personally I will NEVER EVER cut my career for kids. I believe having-it-all is possible.

So naive. (1) Never say never. (2) Having-it-all is not possible.

12/9/10
AnonIcelandicBanker:

What if a woman cuts her career short to raise the kids? Is she not entitled to half then? Women that go back into the workforce after child-rearing are usually generally limited and lose up to 70% of their pay that they would have had they not quit.

I'm genuinely curious to hear this argument, and suspect that couples in the higher tax brackets have very different experiences than people in the lower brackets.

That's why they invented boarding school...

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

12/9/10
AnonIcelandicBanker:

What if a woman cuts her career short to raise the kids? Is she not entitled to half then? Women that go back into the workforce after child-rearing are usually generally limited and lose up to 70% of their pay that they would have had they not quit.

I'm genuinely curious to hear this argument, and suspect that couples in the higher tax brackets have very different experiences than people in the lower brackets.

no

12/9/10
Midas Mulligan Magoo:
AnonIcelandicBanker:

What if a woman cuts her career short to raise the kids? Is she not entitled to half then? Women that go back into the workforce after child-rearing are usually generally limited and lose up to 70% of their pay that they would have had they not quit.

I'm genuinely curious to hear this argument, and suspect that couples in the higher tax brackets have very different experiences than people in the lower brackets.

no

lost cause

12/9/10
AnonIcelandicBanker:
Midas Mulligan Magoo:
AnonIcelandicBanker:

What if a woman cuts her career short to raise the kids? Is she not entitled to half then? Women that go back into the workforce after child-rearing are usually generally limited and lose up to 70% of their pay that they would have had they not quit.

I'm genuinely curious to hear this argument, and suspect that couples in the higher tax brackets have very different experiences than people in the lower brackets.

no

lost cause

Make a legitimate argument and you might garner a thoughtful response. Your "what-if's" and "is-she-not's" are based on big government daddy state entitlement ideology, nobody owes you shit in life, get over yourself...

If you got pregnant and "cut your career short to raise the kids" it means that either:

a) your husband supported you (fed you, clothed you, your child, etc)

b) you already had means (inheritance, savings, etc) to support yourself

c) you had alternative financial support (parents, government, charity)

In all three situations you were duly compensated for your time. As a man who's paid for sonograms, dump trucks worth of baby formula, room, board and everything else that goes with supporting a pregnant woman I'm numerically aware of the costs of pregnancy it is a cost that VERY VERY FEW women actually bare themselves.

"She" is NEVER entitled to anything HE earns. Just like "he" is NEVER entitled to anything SHE earns. Any legal product which endorses THEFT of another person's earnings is just that , even if it is moralized by some liberal idiot theorem that sounds good to its beneficiaries and shames those that oppose it's rabid lunacy. What you and your husband earned TOGETHER or in CONJECTURE, split down the middle.
Everything else is yours or his, period.

No, you getting pregnant, delivering the child and taking the kids to soccer practice twice a week, while doing the laundry does not have the marginal utility of him running an investment bank. If you have invested a million bucks worth of effort into a marriage, I have no jibes with you taking two million back out. But if you got knocked up and performed the services of a housekeeper, while living of HIS earnings and now want half...I think you deserve the same treatment as any thief, con artist or swindler. Period.

Ask yourself the following question will I teach my son/daughter/children that taking another man's/woman's/person's earnings is right, simply because a law allows me to do so?"

If the answer is yes my hats off to you. You're an honest person, you're going after what you want and don't give a shit who knows it. I can't say that I would like to know you or have anything to do with you, but I damn sure respect you and your cutthroat approach to life.

If, however, the answer is no and you will raise your children not to lie/cheat/steal, even if they are able to get away with it...then you should seriously stop and re-think your position. The modern American no fault divorce set-up is predicated on praying on men, children and shitty parents of both genders.

There is absolutely no question of right vs. wrong here. Attempting to validate your robbery of someone, because someone of your gender/race/sexuality group may have unfairly experienced something somewhere in the past is so far removed from the argument that it barely requires acknowledgment.

This sort of "reasoning" is what's known as Positive Discrimination ...a doctrine proven to be useless and faulty in that unjust treatment of individuals in the past is not rectified by favorable treatment of totally different individuals today who JUST HAPPEN by an accident of birth to belong to the same group.

I suggest you read over this last paragraph very carefully, I think you're more than capable of deciphering what I am getting at without having to have it spelled out for you verbatim.

12/9/10
Midas Mulligan Magoo:

Make a legitimate argument and you might garner a thoughtful response. Your "what-if's" and "is-she-not's" are based on big government daddy state entitlement ideology, nobody owes you shit in life, get over yourself...

If you got pregnant and "cut your career short to raise the kids" it means that either:

a) your husband supported you (fed you, clothed you, your child, etc)

b) you already had means (inheritance, savings, etc) to support yourself

c) you had alternative financial support (parents, government, charity)

In all three situations you were duly compensated for your time. As a man who's paid for sonograms, dump trucks worth of baby formula, room, board and everything else that goes with supporting a pregnant woman I'm numerically aware of the costs of pregnancy it is a cost that VERY VERY FEW women actually bare themselves.

Your "looking" at one of them. I got a job, thanks.
What I was referencing to was the wife and husband deciding JOINTLY to have the wife stay at home to raise the kids. Sorry, but if I am at home supporting my husband by providing a house and family for him to come home to after his stressful day, damn right I want half. Especially if he decides my shelf life has expired and decides to take off with the younger model to restart his second family. You started a family, you need to continue to provide for them. End of story. You get married to build your life together. If you go into a marriage thinking that what you earn is yours alone, well, you need a new line of reasoning if you ever want a happy marriage.

Midas Mulligan Magoo:

"She" is NEVER entitled to anything HE earns. Just like "he" is NEVER entitled to anything SHE earns. Any legal product which endorses THEFT of another person's earnings is just that , even if it is moralized by some liberal idiot theorem that sounds good to its beneficiaries and shames those that oppose it's rabid lunacy. What you and your husband earned TOGETHER or in CONJECTURE, split down the middle.
Everything else is yours or his, period.

No, you getting pregnant, delivering the child and taking the kids to soccer practice twice a week, while doing the laundry does not have the marginal utility of him running an investment bank. If you have invested a million bucks worth of effort into a marriage, I have no jibes with you taking two million back out. But if you got knocked up and performed the services of a housekeeper, while living of HIS earnings and now want half...I think you deserve the same treatment as any thief, con artist or swindler. Period.

See above, we agree on this.
I can't argue from that viewpoint because I wasn't raised that way. I would rather become a nun than live my life trying to catch a man and enjoy my days getting pedicures while the nanny takes care of the kids. That kind of woman is just as bad as a deadbeat father. No argument there. The only sense of entitlement I have is what I worked for and was promised. Even then, lots of promises are broken. C'est la vie.

Midas Mulligan Magoo:

Ask yourself the following question will I teach my son/daughter/children that taking another man's/woman's/person's earnings is right, simply because a law allows me to do so?"

If the answer is yes my hats off to you. You're an honest person, you're going after what you want and don't give a shit who knows it. I can't say that I would like to know you or have anything to do with you, but I damn sure respect you and your cutthroat approach to life.

If, however, the answer is no and you will raise your children not to lie/cheat/steal, even if they are able to get away with it...then you should seriously stop and re-think your position. The modern American no fault divorce set-up is predicated on praying on men, children and shitty parents of both genders.

Again, agreed. And I already have, considering I provide for my son without a dime in child support or help from the government other than financial aid my first two years. (After that I made too much :)) I wouldn't be caught dead with my palm out waiting for hand-outs from anyone.

Midas Mulligan Magoo:

There is absolutely no question of right vs. wrong here. Attempting to validate your robbery of someone, because someone of your gender/race/sexuality group may have unfairly experienced something somewhere in the past is so far removed from the argument that it barely requires acknowledgment.

This sort of "reasoning" is what's known as Positive Discrimination ...a doctrine proven to be useless and faulty in that unjust treatment of individuals in the past is not rectified by favorable treatment of totally different individuals today who JUST HAPPEN by an accident of birth to belong to the same group.

I suggest you read over this last paragraph very carefully, I think you're more than capable of deciphering what I am getting at without having to have it spelled out for you verbatim.

My point of women not being able to open checking accounts was because of the post that stated why divorce laws flipped the previous 50years. At the time women did not have many means to economic equality. I think it is highway robbery when a husband decides he is tired of his starter marriage and takes off leaving the woman to fend for the kids. Women that try to re-enter the workforce after child-rearing face many obstacles. I never took time off, so I did not have them. Too many women are raised to believe that they are supposed to go out and find the one, the shining knight in armour that will provide for them. Ever hear of the public vs private spheres and gender roles? It's also been my experience that successful men expect the woman to give up her career to stay at home, because they sure will not. Having kids changes a lot of the dynamics in even the best of marriages.

Frankly, I don't know where you got that I felt that women were entitled to all of a man's earnings in my short post. I admit I should have noted that I was talking about women that pull their weight and do their part in the family. The fact is though, if you chose to mate with them and have kids with them, then you need to own your choices and pay up. Man or woman.

12/10/10
AnonIcelandicBanker:
Midas Mulligan Magoo:

Make a legitimate argument and you might garner a thoughtful response. Your "what-if's" and "is-she-not's" are based on big government daddy state entitlement ideology, nobody owes you shit in life, get over yourself...

If you got pregnant and "cut your career short to raise the kids" it means that either:

a) your husband supported you (fed you, clothed you, your child, etc)

b) you already had means (inheritance, savings, etc) to support yourself

c) you had alternative financial support (parents, government, charity)

In all three situations you were duly compensated for your time. As a man who's paid for sonograms, dump trucks worth of baby formula, room, board and everything else that goes with supporting a pregnant woman I'm numerically aware of the costs of pregnancy it is a cost that VERY VERY FEW women actually bare themselves.

Your "looking" at one of them. I got a job, thanks.
What I was referencing to was the wife and husband deciding JOINTLY to have the wife stay at home to raise the kids. Sorry, but if I am at home supporting my husband by providing a house and family for him to come home to after his stressful day, damn right I want half. Especially if he decides my shelf life has expired and decides to take off with the younger model to restart his second family. You started a family, you need to continue to provide for them. End of story. You get married to build your life together. If you go into a marriage thinking that what you earn is yours alone, well, you need a new line of reasoning if you ever want a happy marriage.

Midas Mulligan Magoo:

"She" is NEVER entitled to anything HE earns. Just like "he" is NEVER entitled to anything SHE earns. Any legal product which endorses THEFT of another person's earnings is just that , even if it is moralized by some liberal idiot theorem that sounds good to its beneficiaries and shames those that oppose it's rabid lunacy. What you and your husband earned TOGETHER or in CONJECTURE, split down the middle.
Everything else is yours or his, period.

No, you getting pregnant, delivering the child and taking the kids to soccer practice twice a week, while doing the laundry does not have the marginal utility of him running an investment bank. If you have invested a million bucks worth of effort into a marriage, I have no jibes with you taking two million back out. But if you got knocked up and performed the services of a housekeeper, while living of HIS earnings and now want half...I think you deserve the same treatment as any thief, con artist or swindler. Period.

See above, we agree on this.
I can't argue from that viewpoint because I wasn't raised that way. I would rather become a nun than live my life trying to catch a man and enjoy my days getting pedicures while the nanny takes care of the kids. That kind of woman is just as bad as a deadbeat father. No argument there. The only sense of entitlement I have is what I worked for and was promised. Even then, lots of promises are broken. C'est la vie.

Midas Mulligan Magoo:

Ask yourself the following question will I teach my son/daughter/children that taking another man's/woman's/person's earnings is right, simply because a law allows me to do so?"

If the answer is yes my hats off to you. You're an honest person, you're going after what you want and don't give a shit who knows it. I can't say that I would like to know you or have anything to do with you, but I damn sure respect you and your cutthroat approach to life.

If, however, the answer is no and you will raise your children not to lie/cheat/steal, even if they are able to get away with it...then you should seriously stop and re-think your position. The modern American no fault divorce set-up is predicated on praying on men, children and shitty parents of both genders.

Again, agreed. And I already have, considering I provide for my son without a dime in child support or help from the government other than financial aid my first two years. (After that I made too much :)) I wouldn't be caught dead with my palm out waiting for hand-outs from anyone.

Midas Mulligan Magoo:

There is absolutely no question of right vs. wrong here. Attempting to validate your robbery of someone, because someone of your gender/race/sexuality group may have unfairly experienced something somewhere in the past is so far removed from the argument that it barely requires acknowledgment.

This sort of "reasoning" is what's known as Positive Discrimination ...a doctrine proven to be useless and faulty in that unjust treatment of individuals in the past is not rectified by favorable treatment of totally different individuals today who JUST HAPPEN by an accident of birth to belong to the same group.

I suggest you read over this last paragraph very carefully, I think you're more than capable of deciphering what I am getting at without having to have it spelled out for you verbatim.

My point of women not being able to open checking accounts was because of the post that stated why divorce laws flipped the previous 50years. At the time women did not have many means to economic equality. I think it is highway robbery when a husband decides he is tired of his starter marriage and takes off leaving the woman to fend for the kids. Women that try to re-enter the workforce after child-rearing face many obstacles. I never took time off, so I did not have them. Too many women are raised to believe that they are supposed to go out and find the one, the shining knight in armour that will provide for them. Ever hear of the public vs private spheres and gender roles? It's also been my experience that successful men expect the woman to give up her career to stay at home, because they sure will not. Having kids changes a lot of the dynamics in even the best of marriages.

Frankly, I don't know where you got that I felt that women were entitled to all of a man's earnings in my short post. I admit I should have noted that I was talking about women that pull their weight and do their part in the family. The fact is though, if you chose to mate with them and have kids with them, then you need to own your choices and pay up. Man or woman.

Schopenhauer-ism

12/9/10

The swing in divorce laws happened because 50 years ago women got absolutely screwed over. Its not enough apparently that we have to pay for the retirement of these people who have nothing better to do then vote and get riled up about their factory job that paid the equivalent of $50 an hour to tighten lug nuts but the legal backlash from these times are unreal. I for one am sick and tired of paying (with money and blood) for the mistakes of our father's (grandfather's for some of you younger cats).

I'm having to move to another place soon just so my girlfriend can't argue common law if we break up. Say what you want about women, but in the real poker game of life, lawyers are the fucking rake. Charging by the quarter hour and advocating more litigation no matter the impact makes makes the thievery I engage in for a living look like the work of Mother Theresa.

12/9/10
Aggravate:

The swing in divorce laws happened because 50 years ago women got absolutely screwed over. I

Yup. And it wasn't until the late 70's and early 80's that women were allowed to open checking accounts. Before then they had to have their husbands or a male guardian sign off. Not really that long ago...

@Nonfatlatte - amen girl. It can be done. But some women once they get knocked up realize they just want to be at home with their kids. I have also seen that many people choose to have one person at home because it really does make the home life easier. Babies get sick, a lot. There are a million appointments to take them to, and you have to go post-birth, etc. But if you are in a higher income bracket you can afford live-in help. Easier for us to have it all when we make six figures, but for the women making 50k it usually makes sense for them to just stay home instead of working to pay for daycare.

12/9/10

maybe im the only one... and partially because of the forum we are all at... but am i the only one potentially marrying "up"...

The GF is going to be a Doctor... schwing! Dont get me wrong, I plan on getting the best job (pay, challenge etc) possible, but hey, if shes the breadwinner... i got no probs with that.

How often do we hear of cases where the husband hoses the woman out of her money during the divorce???

"Stay Hungry, Stay Foolish"

12/9/10
dmcd:

maybe im the only one... and partially because of the forum we are all at... but am i the only one potentially marrying "up"...

The GF is going to be a Doctor... schwing! Dont get me wrong, I plan on getting the best job (pay, challenge etc) possible, but hey, if shes the breadwinner... i got no probs with that.

How often do we hear of cases where the husband hoses the woman out of her money during the divorce???

I have a friend that was with a very successful professional. She is also successful and makes a very good living. Had a kid together and her life has been heck since. She got hosed big time and is now paying him child support because he refuses to work. The courts are a joke.

12/9/10
AnonIcelandicBanker:
dmcd:

maybe im the only one... and partially because of the forum we are all at... but am i the only one potentially marrying "up"...

The GF is going to be a Doctor... schwing! Dont get me wrong, I plan on getting the best job (pay, challenge etc) possible, but hey, if shes the breadwinner... i got no probs with that.

How often do we hear of cases where the husband hoses the woman out of her money during the divorce???

I have a friend that was with a very successful professional. She is also successful and makes a very good living. Had a kid together and her life has been heck since. She got hosed big time and is now paying him child support because he refuses to work. The courts are a joke.

So your friend was spreading her legs for some deadbeat and then got hosed for child support when she got knocked up? I remember hearing some quote once upon a time about reaping and sowing....

So the courts are only a joke when rulings are unfavorable for females? We as a society can just handwave away the other 96% of the time when it's men getting screwed, right?

12/9/10
Easy:

[[

So your friend was spreading her legs for some deadbeat and then got hosed for child support when she got knocked up? I remember hearing some quote once upon a time about reaping and sowing....

So the courts are only a joke when rulings are unfavorable for females? We as a society can just handwave away the other 96% of the time when it's men getting screwed, right?

What part of my friend's man was a successful professional did you not catch? He made almost 3x as her. When she left because he started getting crazy once the child was born he tried to go for joint custody. When that failed, he quit his job and began using the courts as a venue to harass her. The courts are a joke in that everything is done by a formula and it is all too easy for a father or the mother to get shafted.

And no, I do not think it is cool for men OR women to get screwed. Personally I don't get a dime in child support because I don't want it. And because I was a socially dumb PYT I hooked up with a d-bag, denied the warning signs, and as a result could very well be paying for it in the form of child support a few years from now when/if he realizes I make a good living. A bitter pill to swallow, but the price I will have to pay for my past choices. And guess what, because of the formula used to calculate child support, I will have to pay, and I will have to give my kid to visitation even though the first 6-10 years of his life he wasn't involved.

12/9/10

One of my best friends is a divorce attorney. I asked: Is there such a thing as an "offshore marriage"? As in getting married abroad to avoid US divorce law when you do get divorced?

Her response: that is a very complicated question. But if you are domiciled here, you can get divorced here. You are asking the type of q that we charge 550/hour to research, I would need more facts before I can help you and the only reason I can is because I did research on a mexican marriage not too long ago.

Meanwhile, my parents were married abroad but filed for divorce in their state because that was far and away the easiest thing to do, given that's where the marital assets were, were they had lived the longest etc.

If you just go abroad solely to get married and then come back and live here, I think you will have a really hard time forcing the divorce proceedings to take place abroad (unless you have a prenup that states that or something, in which case, why not just get married in the US with an ironclad prenup)? Totally different if you actually live abroad, I assume, but that's not what you alluded to in your post.

If "offshore marriages" were easier/cheaper/better, they would be commonplace and many would do them in lieu of prenups. As far as I know that is not the case and a good prenup and marriage in the US is far and away the best way to go.

Consultant to a Fortune 50 Company

12/9/10

Here's my question: what percentage of 21-year-olds who loudly proclaim "I AIN'T NEVER GETTIN HITCHED" actually stick to that 20 years down the road? And what percentage of older dudes villifying marriage are NOT products of bitter divorces?

One of those lights, slightly brighter than the rest, will be my wingtip passing over.

12/9/10

Sad but true. I'd love to get married, but it just doesn't make sense for higher-earning American men.

Even without today's soul-crushing divorce laws that favor women, monogamy is generally a bad deal for high-status males, who are often able to engage in "soft" polygyny due to high value/attractiveness. For these men, women are depreciating assets with an expiration date of about 35 years. High-earning men usually don't even hit their own peak value until this age, so why invest?

My major concern is having children. What's the best way to reproduce without getting married or incurring serious financial risk (child support/alimony/highway robbery)?

12/9/10

Btw guys, related to my last post. Laws do change here, so a prenup should be renewed/ammended via postnup every so often to make sure that all provisions in it are valid.

Bottom line, divorce sucks, don't get married and avoid common law marriages if you have a long-term gf.

Consultant to a Fortune 50 Company

12/9/10

Pre-nups won't protect you. There are lawyers who specialize in shredding pre-nups no matter how seemingly air tight. In order to get them to stick you have to get them re-written and signed every couple of years. Try getting your wife who doesn't have to sign that shit to sign it after you;ve been married 6 years and have a kid. No chance.

I used to think I'd certainly get married prior to having children if only so they wouldn't have to explain the situation to people. I am beginning to think that a more practical situation would be to sit my future 5-year-old down and explain how "Daddy doesn't totally trust Mommy to have his best interests at heart forever."

Also, dmcd, do you know what the average doctor has in terms of overall debt and what the paydown curve on that is? You'll be rolling in her debt well into your 40s before you are rolling in her money she doesn't owe to people. And that's true even if you are already divorced, but at least you'll be helping to subsidize people's quality of health care.

I pass no judgment on people who get married, but it goes back to what Eddie said about selling your options dearly. The expected value of a marriage is pretty steep. 40% divorce rates in the US (real number) and on average guys are losing half their shit (let's assume, though it can be much worse). Expected value at time of marriage is already 20% of your assets at time of divorce and maybe the same on future cash flows. Obviously your exposure is even higher and this wouldn't take into account legal fees for your side of the highly likely court battle. The question is then is it worth that potential downside to get married.

I'll caveat this by saying that my parents have been married (mostly happily) for over 30 years, so its just a numbers game that everyone has to decide for themselves.

12/10/10
Aggravate:

I used to think I'd certainly get married prior to having children if only so they wouldn't have to explain the situation to people. I am beginning to think that a more practical situation would be to sit my future 5-year-old down and explain how "Daddy doesn't totally trust Mommy to have his best interests at heart forever."
.

Question. Under this scenario, does Daddy have Mommy's best interests at heart or does he use her reproductive function to fulfill personal agenda?

Also, wouldn't it be more important for mommy to have the future 5 year old's best interests at heart, rather than Daddy's?

If Daddy is looking for for someone to have his best interests at heart always and forever, maybe he needs to see a shrink, and get those Oedipus complex/ Mommy issues resolved

More is good, all is better

12/10/10
Argonaut:
Aggravate:

I used to think I'd certainly get married prior to having children if only so they wouldn't have to explain the situation to people. I am beginning to think that a more practical situation would be to sit my future 5-year-old down and explain how "Daddy doesn't totally trust Mommy to have his best interests at heart forever."
.

Question. Under this scenario, does Daddy have Mommy's best interests at heart or does he use her reproductive function to fulfill personal agenda?

Also, wouldn't it be more important for mommy to have the future 5 year old's best interests at heart, rather than Daddy's?

If Daddy is looking for for someone to have his best interests at heart always and forever, maybe he needs to see a shrink, and get those Oedipus complex/ Mommy issues resolved

I think you are confusing me with the gaggle of juveniles that believe women are universally money grubbing whores that frequent the site. I could see how, given the context of this thread, you'd get that impression.

My hypothetical with a 5-year-old would work equally well for a women in the same situation. I don't think this is a gender discussion (most of us just happen to be men) but rather a marriage discussion in a society where even if you control for income men suffer more in divorce. Overall everyone suffers (men, women, children) with the exception of lawyers. The biggest problem with divorce procedings is that the language and precedent is shaped by the desire (often by both parties) to be punitive with money or child custody. If a couple is getting divorced its because one or both parties feels aggrieved. Lawyers feed on this desire and nurture it because it is simply good for business.

As a side note, the least you can do is try and make your ad hominem arguments funny.

12/10/10
Aggravate:
Argonaut:
Aggravate:

I used to think I'd certainly get married prior to having children if only so they wouldn't have to explain the situation to people. I am beginning to think that a more practical situation would be to sit my future 5-year-old down and explain how "Daddy doesn't totally trust Mommy to have his best interests at heart forever."
.

Question. Under this scenario, does Daddy have Mommy's best interests at heart or does he use her reproductive function to fulfill personal agenda?

Also, wouldn't it be more important for mommy to have the future 5 year old's best interests at heart, rather than Daddy's?

If Daddy is looking for for someone to have his best interests at heart always and forever, maybe he needs to see a shrink, and get those Oedipus complex/ Mommy issues resolved

I think you are confusing me with the gaggle of juveniles that believe women are universally money grubbing whores that frequent the site. I could see how, given the context of this thread, you'd get that impression.

My hypothetical with a 5-year-old would work equally well for a women in the same situation. I don't think this is a gender discussion (most of us just happen to be men) but rather a marriage discussion in a society where even if you control for income men suffer more in divorce. Overall everyone suffers (men, women, children) with the exception of lawyers. The biggest problem with divorce procedings is that the language and precedent is shaped by the desire (often by both parties) to be punitive with money or child custody. If a couple is getting divorced its because one or both parties feels aggrieved. Lawyers feed on this desire and nurture it because it is simply good for business.

As a side note, the least you can do is try and make your ad hominem arguments funny.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that even without lawyers or outdated societal traditions you will ensure that your child would have a standard of living not far inferior to yours, regardless of how you feel about child's mother, i.e. - the child would suffer less in case you just move on from a cohabitating relationship, than he/she would if you and his/her mother were married and had to go through a divorce?

More is good, all is better

12/9/10

Methinks there are some Chateau members here...I'm looking at you, Midas

12/9/10

I think it might be nice to hear from someone who is neither 1.) a survivor of an ugly divorce nor 2.) a college kid.

All of you talking in hypotheticals (not you, Midas, I see where you're coming from) - yes, maybe marriage can clean you out if you get divorced. But... what if you don't get divorced? If you see a long and happy marriage as just an instance of someone leeching off of you, grow up. And if you can't find someone who isn't purely interested in spending your money, the fault lies with you.

One of those lights, slightly brighter than the rest, will be my wingtip passing over.

12/9/10

As a woman this thread is incredibly depressing...an expiration date of 35 years old...really guys? I would never view my fiancee as having an expiration date for looks, money, or anything (and I hope he wouldn't either).

For the record, my mother had to pay support to an ex-husband so that he could live off of it without working and maintaining the same lifestyle he was accustomed to with my mother. It's not that the courts favor women, it's that they favor whoever doesn't work, and there are reasons for that, too.

It's easy, psychologically, to come together and curse those outside of the "group" when you are in a relatively anonymous forum with a strong group identity (in this case, and specifically in this thread, women are outside the group). You find it on websites like Jezebel, too, where they argue that men suck. I don't like either view, because it criticizes the other sex without taking a good look at yourselves.

Just my thoughts.

12/10/10

For me, the big disconnect is in the quantity of money demanded. I full heartedly agree that the woman is owed something for the services IcelandicBanker mentions. However, the amount that women tend to think they are entitled to is ridiculous. I'll work with the number IcelandicBanker threw out: "Half" or "50%" of the wealth.

First, it is important to note that in today's courts, the woman is entitled not only to the current assets, but also her portion of the FUTURE earnings. So, if you get divorced at age 30, be prepared to shell out a portion of your income for the rest of your career (unless she gets re-married).

So, that leads us to the problem: HALF? Are you JOKING me? So the woman gets 50% of the man's future work product, but what does the man get? He now has to come home and do 100% of the tasks that used to be the woman's responsibility. He has to do 100% of household chores as well as tend to the child during his days. I'd say if the woman feels entitled to a portion of the man's future earnings, the man ought to be entitled to a portion of the woman's work product as well. That's right -- she needs to come to his house and do the damn laundry. Otherwise, it's a one-sided transfer -- hardly fair.

The way I see it is, when a person chooses a mate, they are choosing to get the whole package. This package includes the person's looks, behavior, values, and money/income. When a person chooses to get a divorce, they are giving back the whole package. You can't pick and choose which pieces of the package you want to keep and which ones you don't want anymore. It is an "all or nothing" deal.

Personally, I think there ought to be a cap on the amount of alimony a woman can receive in return for her "work" tending to the home. I'd put that cap at about $100k/year or 20% of future earnings, whichever is less.

CompBanker

12/10/10
CompBanker:

So, that leads us to the problem: HALF? Are you JOKING me? So the woman gets 50% of the man's future work product, but what does the man get? He now has to come home and do 100% of the tasks that used to be the woman's responsibility. He has to do 100% of household chores as well as tend to the child during his days. I'd say if the woman feels entitled to a portion of the man's future earnings, the man ought to be entitled to a portion of the woman's work product as well. That's right -- she needs to come to his house and do the damn laundry. Otherwise, it's a one-sided transfer -- hardly fair.

Hahahahaha I'm sorry but the thought of that made me laugh. A scorned woman doing your laundry is the last thing you need!!!

Also, I want to do away with alimony for the most part. It's a relic of the fact that women did not have any means to economic equality in the good ol days. Not true anymore so, if you don't have kids? go get a damn job and move on. Maybe there is a legal basis for it but I don't see it being applicable today. Split the cash and retirement money and call it day.

Having kids in a divorce is a totally different animal. Most people, not just women, can't afford all the expenses on their own. Daycare is around 1400k for an infant to one years old. A month. That is more than many person's biweekly paycheck on Main St...

12/10/10
AnonIcelandicBanker:

Daycare is around 1400k for an infant to one years old. A month. That is more than many person's biweekly paycheck on Main St...

I'm sorry but this is just not the case. 1400 bucks a month for day care? You can easily pay much less than that in MOST places. My cousin goes to a 'prep school day learning center' or some such nonsense and its approx. that number in a major city...the average daycare in the average locality is certainly MUCH lower than 350 a week. You have to think outside of the WASPY wonderland that most of us on this site occupy. If you are making less than 2800 a month (based on your claim that this 1400 number is 'more than most people make in their biweekly paycheck') you certainly should not be sending your kid somewhere that costs 350 bucks a week.

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

12/10/10
happypantsmcgee:
AnonIcelandicBanker:

Daycare is around 1400k for an infant to one years old. A month. That is more than many person's biweekly paycheck on Main St...

I'm sorry but this is just not the case. 1400 bucks a month for day care? You can easily pay much less than that in MOST places. My cousin goes to a 'prep school day learning center' or some such nonsense and its approx. that number in a major city...the average daycare in the average locality is certainly MUCH lower than 350 a week. You have to think outside of the WASPY wonderland that most of us on this site occupy. If you are making less than 2800 a month (based on your claim that this 1400 number is 'more than most people make in their biweekly paycheck') you certainly should not be sending your kid somewhere that costs 350 bucks a week.

One thing that is for certain is that daycare centers are definitely not all operated in the same fashion. Because of this, prices will vary greatly. Some cost differences to consider? Some daycare centers provide all snacks and meals, while others require parents to pack their child's lunch every day. Some daycare centers build in extracurricular activities or "interest stations" that are age appropriate within the day as part of the service offered to families, while others allow parents to elect to put their kid in gymnastics, karate, art or even second language instruction for an extra fee. Some daycare facilities take great pride in their formalized academic preschool curriculum, while others adopt the adage that all skills learned by toddlers and youngsters is a form of learning, and that a child's most important tasks each day are learning to get along and to grow through play. Some programs offer field trips while others don't believe in transporting preschool-aged youngsters anywhere for safety and liability reasons.
http://childcare.about.com/od/costofchildcare/qt/d...

I don't know dude, I wouldn't want my kid to go to some ghetto center that keeps failing health inspections and where he/she would just vegetate all day instead of developing.
2800 take home is 3500 - 4000 pre-tax/insurance/401k.
That's 42000 - 48000 a year - right around median for men and about 10k above median for women. So let's see - out of 2800 take home, about a 1000 goes to mortgage/rent (and that's on a lower end, areas with lower costs than that don't usually boast an abundance of jobs that pay over 40 k a year), about 800-1000 goes to the childcare (going with a safe, but not top of the line childcare center - 200-250 a week). Food - let's say the single parent is super-human with insane amounts of energy, great time management skills, AND rock solid self-discipline, so he/she never eats out and makes nutritious meals after work (because you wouldn't want your kid to eat crap or go starving) - another 400 month.
What do we have left? 400 a month for transportation, clothes, utilities, medical - nevermind the single parent would get fired unless he/she is also a top performer at work and can get the management to look the other way when he/she takes way too much sick leave,
Or has to take off work at odd hours to take the kid to a doctor.
I guess it's doable, if you *absolutely* have to, but I just don't see why would anyone want their child to have such a low standard of living, what was the point of making a baby in the first place?

More is good, all is better

12/10/10
happypantsmcgee:
AnonIcelandicBanker:

Daycare is around 1400k for an infant to one years old. A month. That is more than many person's biweekly paycheck on Main St...

I'm sorry but this is just not the case. 1400 bucks a month for day care? You can easily pay much less than that in MOST places. My cousin goes to a 'prep school day learning center' or some such nonsense and its approx. that number in a major city...the average daycare in the average locality is certainly MUCH lower than 350 a week. You have to think outside of the WASPY wonderland that most of us on this site occupy. If you are making less than 2800 a month (based on your claim that this 1400 number is 'more than most people make in their biweekly paycheck') you certainly should not be sending your kid somewhere that costs 350 bucks a week.

Based from Southern California, various cities. I checked. You can do in home day-care for less but then you have more days that are closed and are reliant on one person to be there everyday. And that is why many people choose to have one of the partners stay at home instead of working to pay for daycare.

12/10/10
CompBanker:

For me, the big disconnect is in the quantity of money demanded. I full heartedly agree that the woman is owed something for the services IcelandicBanker mentions. However, the amount that women tend to think they are entitled to is ridiculous. I'll work with the number IcelandicBanker threw out: "Half" or "50%" of the wealth.

First, it is important to note that in today's courts, the woman is entitled not only to the current assets, but also her portion of the FUTURE earnings. So, if you get divorced at age 30, be prepared to shell out a portion of your income for the rest of your career (unless she gets re-married).

So, that leads us to the problem: HALF? Are you JOKING me? So the woman gets 50% of the man's future work product, but what does the man get? He now has to come home and do 100% of the tasks that used to be the woman's responsibility. He has to do 100% of household chores as well as tend to the child during his days. I'd say if the woman feels entitled to a portion of the man's future earnings, the man ought to be entitled to a portion of the woman's work product as well. That's right -- she needs to come to his house and do the damn laundry. Otherwise, it's a one-sided transfer -- hardly fair.

The way I see it is, when a person chooses a mate, they are choosing to get the whole package. This package includes the person's looks, behavior, values, and money/income. When a person chooses to get a divorce, they are giving back the whole package. You can't pick and choose which pieces of the package you want to keep and which ones you don't want anymore. It is an "all or nothing" deal.

Personally, I think there ought to be a cap on the amount of alimony a woman can receive in return for her "work" tending to the home. I'd put that cap at about $100k/year or 20% of future earnings, whichever is less.

+1 SB for you sir....hit the nail on the fucking head

"Jesus, he's like a gremlin; comes with instructions and shit"

12/10/10

wow, some interesting posts on both sides - thanks for sharing.

12/10/10

What is 6 inches long 2 inches wide and makes a woman go wild?

Money.

12/10/10

As a very wizened thinker (female) once wrote "the problem with having it all, is doing it all".

I have to say this divorce point is a very sore point for me, with no exposure to it (don't know anyone that went through a divorce or got screwed from one).

It should be made, by law, part of the marriage procedure, documents be drawn up in event of the marriage failing, that have contingencies built in (ill health, children, adultery), what should happen in each event. Might stop 1 of 2 Vegas marriages too.

Do not EVER use the line women have to take time off to have kids. NO they do not. Life is about choices, and choices have consequences. If you cannot live with the consequence, do not make the choice. If you haven't thought the consequences through that is not my problem.

Additionally, if you want to go down the kids path, I want to quantify the extra time I have to spend at work and thus not with my child at a rate greater than my earning, because I'd rather be at home than at work, so that time is more valuable to me.

Ironically, the way women (as a group, not individuals) are at now is doing their "rights" a disservice. Fewer higher earning men will be willing to settle down, leaving more women sans family (would do wonders for the population problem this planet is having though).

The fact that makes me sick to the back teeth? Check out the Fortune 1000, list, filter by women and have a good look at source of wealth.

I hope this woman's divorce fund goes flat through the floor as it deserves to.

12/10/10

To unlock this content for free, please login / register below.

Connecting helps us build a vibrant community. We'll never share your info without your permission. Sign up with email or if you are already a member, login here Bonus: Also get 6 free financial modeling lessons for free ($200+ value) when you register!
12/11/10

More is good, all is better

12/12/10

"Make 'Nanas, not war! "

What's Your Opinion? Comment below:

Login or register to get credit (collect bananas).
All anonymous comments are unpublished until reviewed. No links or promotional material will be allowed. Most comments are published within 24 hours.
WallStreet Prep Master Financial Modeling