Without community property laws, what woman (Or man) would agree to stay home and raise the children? (I’m using the female pronouns below for ease of writing. But it’s the same for a SAHH as well)
A start SAHM would demand in a pre-nuptial that she receive a salary from her husband to cover her carrying the child, keeping house and caring for the children, etc.
She would also expect payment for every time she accompanies him to a dinner party or other event to help make him look good for jobs, to customers, etc.
She would also as for a retirement fund. And severance pays as well if the husband decides to divorce her.”
And a smart SAHM would negotiate that this either be a percentage or her husband’s income or that it was a fixed rate that he has to pay no matter what happens, like a lost job etc. After all, if things are not joint, his finial hardships should not be hers nor the children’s. If you do this, you can expect that your wife will have a full time career and she will not have children with you. If you become ill, she will not take care of you. If you lose your job, she will not help to support you until you get a new one. If you retire before her, you will still have to find a way to pay your percentage of all bills.
It is impossible to argue with someone who says that his wife literally contributed nothing to the marriage. I would suggest that putting up with your attitude should entitle her to half.....that's for sure.
Community property is there for a reason. Anything earned during the marriage is split 50/50 as it is with any partnership. She is your partner, not your employee.
If you believe such naïve, romantic nonsense, then tell me this: How can the one person, which obviously resulted from the “unification” of two people by marriage, then sue himself for divorce??
Are you smoking that good Canadian weed which I hear is coming unto the U.S. now from your region? It is not only your post which makes me suspect this, but your signature as well!
Your focus is far too narrow. In your specific context communal property may truly be unfair and unjust, Ill be sure to shed a tear for you. However, on a much broader scale it does make sence, and allows for equality amongst the sexes, as some of these fine young ladies have pointed out.
If you have any interest in debating--err, arguing your points against pot, start the thread. Ill be there.
Without community property laws, what woman (Or man) would agree to stay home and raise the children? (I’m using the female pronouns below for ease of writing. But it’s the same for a SAHH as well)
The mutual obligation to contribute equally to the care of their children is occasioned by the parental partnership which both parties entered when they became parents. This has nothing to do with arbitrary division of assets for no other reason but that these parties are “married.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by EleGirl
A smart SAHM would demand in a pre-nuptial that she receive a salary from her husband to cover her carrying the child, keeping house and caring for the children, etc.
She has the right to demand this and the man has the right to reject such a pre-nup.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EleGirl
She would also expect payment for every time she accompanies him to a dinner party or other event to help make him look good for jobs, to customers, etc.
If she wants to put this provision into the above mentioned pre-nup she can do so as well. If she neglected to do so then she can demand a post-nup including this at any time, and if her husband rejects this her option is to stop attending the dinner parties. My belief is that the value of a wife’s contribution to her husband’s success, thru social interaction like this, is greatly overrated. Think about it. If all of this were necessary, then no single man could ever succeed in business. Such a situation could only be seen as discrimination against single persons and would probably be made, eventually, illegal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EleGirl
She would also ask for a retirement fund. And severance pays as well if the husband decides to divorce her.
And a smart SAHM would negotiate that this either be a percentage or her husband’s income or that it was a fixed rate that he has to pay no matter what happens, like a lost job etc. After all, if things are not joint, his finial hardships should not be hers nor the children’s. If you do this, you can expect that your wife will have a full time career and she will not have children with you. If you become ill, she will not take care of you. If you lose your job, she will not help to support you until you get a new one. If you retire before her, you will still have to find a way to pay your percentage of all bills.
She can ask for anything she wants, and the man has the right, VOLUNTARILY, to agree to her request or deny it. If she refuses to have his children she is only exercising the same right she would have under present law which confiscates his assets, in a divorce, when his wife may not only have refused to have children but even to have sex.
If a man becomes ill, in a truly free world without such legalized theft as community property law, then his wife would likely be even more considerate in taking care of him. After all, if he dies he will no longer be able to generate assets with which to care for her.
With regard to a wife refusing to take care of her husband if he becomes ill, in a marriage without community property law being involved, I have never said anything opposing present law requiring that married parties take care of their spouses in the event of their illness. The existence of community property law in a marriage, contrary to your own suggestion, actually increases the likelihood that she would not take care of him and, rather, would simply choose to divorce him when he is ill and take her big payoff, as provided by this vile, anachronistic law!
In other words, a woman should stay home and take care of the kids like an employee who has "at will" employment. When the husband no longer is willing, she is tossed out with no assets whatsoever and the only thing she should feel grateful about is that she got to live mortgage free in a house while being the unpaid nanny?
Oh and she should be willing to take care of her sick husband no matter what but he reserves the right to abandon her. Okay.
I bet you have women just tripping over themselves to be in your presence.
In other words, a woman should stay home and take care of the kids like an employee who has "at will" employment.
Not at all. She has a responsibility to provide one-half of the care for these children without regard to her relationship with her husband at any and all times. The other half of this responsibility belongs to their father. He could not dismiss her from this responsibility even if he wanted to without the agreement of a court, nor could she absolve him of such equivalent responsibilites. None of this has anything to do with community property.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Therealbrighteyes
When the husband no longer is willing, she is tossed out with no assets whatsoever and the only thing she should feel grateful about is that she got to live mortgage free in a house while being the unpaid nanny?
Again, not at all. If she can demonstrate that her efforts contributed to the creation of assets remaining in the ownership of the husband, then she should be awarded an appropriate amount of said assets as supported by the evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Therealbrighteyes
Oh and she should be willing to take care of her sick husband no matter what but he reserves the right to abandon her..Okay
Yes, that seems to be what the legislators have, in their infinite wisdom, given us. I don‘t know if she could, likewise, divorce him while he is ill, in order to avoid responsibility for his care, or would have to wait until he becomes well. This sounds like a “grey area” where judges may disagree...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Therealbrighteyes
I bet you have women just tripping over themselves to be in your presence.
Again, not at all. If she can demonstrate that her efforts contributed to the creation of assets remaining in the ownership of the husband, then she should be awarded an appropriate amount of said assets as supported by the evidence.
I have a scenario for you and I would like your honest opinion on whether the wife in this situation is entitled to anything, because I am quite confused with what you're saying...
Husband goes to work out of town for 3 months and makes about $50,000 for the work. He get's home and bolts the minute he get's home, files for divorce and claims the full $50,000 because he went out of town and made that money. Do you think the wife is entitled to half of that money? While he was out of town, she worked her normal full time job and cared for the children full time.
I have a scenario for you and I would like your honest opinion on whether the wife in this situation is entitled to anything, because I am quite confused with what you're saying...
Husband goes to work out of town for 3 months and makes about $50,000 for the work. He get's home and bolts the minute he get's home, files for divorce and claims the full $50,000 because he went out of town and made that money. Do you think the wife is entitled to half of that money? While he was out of town, she worked her normal full time job and cared for the children full time.
Unless they had a separate contract, providing that she would do as you described and that her husband would then later reimburse her--either in funds or equivalent time caring for the children---then the answer is no.
Prior to any divorce the implied parental partnership requires joint responsibility for giving care to the children, but this only applies in the aggregate and not necessarily in a manner which must be split equally. The decision as to the nature of this care and the division of it is decided by the parents, voluntarily and together. Barring any evidence to the contrary it must be assumed to have been so decided.
This is different from Community Property law, wherein the state presumes to make a decision for the married parties---about assets--with their only being able to adjust this decision by a pre-nup or, in states where allowed ,a post-nup. Such voluntary agreements are routinely changed or ignored, by a court, in a divorce. The only solution to this is to eliminate community property and let the parties then make whatever arrangements in this regard which they may wish!
Unless they had a separate contract, providing that she would do as you described and that her husband would then later reimburse her--either in funds or equivalent time caring for the children---then the answer is no.
Prior to any divorce the implied parental partnership requires joint responsibility for giving care to the children, but this only applies in the aggregate and not necessarily in a manner which must be split equally. The decision as to the nature of this care and the division of it is decided by the parents, voluntarily and together. Barring any evidence to the contrary it must be assumed to have been so decided.
This is different from Community Property law, wherein the state presumes to make a decision for the married parties---about assets--with their only being able to adjust this decision by a pre-nup or, in states where allowed ,a post-nup. Such voluntary agreements are routinely changed or ignored, by a court, in a divorce. The only solution to this is to eliminate community property and let the parties then make whatever arrangements in this regard which they may wish!
That sounds like fun marriage!
Anyway, I did not realize courts change mutual agreements without consent of both parties. That's awful. Did it happen to you? Posted via Mobile Device
I did not realize courts change mutual agreements without consent of both parties. That's awful. Did it happen to you?
Judicial Nullification (ignoring or changing clear law and without explaining this) happened to me but not in the area of divorce. It was in a case of clear fraud against me in which the defendant's attorney insisted that his client was merely exercising his right of “free speech” in misrepresenting what he was selling. An appeal could have been had at a cost of $15,000 (to start), but then I learned that these fail 80% of the time and usually would require that the corrupt appeals judges reverse one of their cronies.
If they commit this kind of legalized theft every day, anyway, how can we give them even more encouragement to be on a power trip like this, by permitting them “100 % discretion” in the division of marital assets? And tell them that they’re supposed to divide it “50-50” ---unless the victim of this process can prove (to a standard almost equivalent to the Criminal Standard) that the division should be otherwise”?!
The bit that all assets are divided 50% is wrong. There are non-community assets and debt. These are assets that a person brings into a marriage. They are assets that are inheretence and gifts.
That’s true, but if the inheritance or gifts are received as cash---or converted into cash---forget about it. In this modern world people will move it so often that the amount of community property contained in it, which accumulates automatically, cannot be tracked. The money will be moved this often to get the maximum return on it and, if any record of its location---at any given time---is not available this alone will convert it all into community property. Any addition to these separate property assets, unless the source of the new funds can be proven separate property as well will, likewise, convert the entire account into community property.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sock puppet
Your focus is far too narrow. In your specific context communal property may truly be unfair and unjust, Ill be sure to shed a tear for you. However, on a much broader scale it does make sence, and allows for equality amongst the sexes, as some of these fine young ladies have pointed out.
Do you see that the following is the same statement as yours, above, but applied to everyone, not only to those who are “married”?
….In your specific context guilt until proof of innocence may truly be unfair and unjust, I’ll be sure to shed a tear for you. However, on a much broader scale it does make sence, and allows for equality amongst the people, with punishment equally applied to all suspects, and without the unnecessary inconvenience of having to prove guilt in any specific case, as some of these fine young thieves have pointed out!
Inheritance received as cash? Surely you are joking. A will or trust is overseen by an attorney. It is his/her job to enforce the legal document that the deceased signed. If a will does not exist, it goes to Probate court and is overseen by a Judge and an attorney. No estate is settled by peeling off $100 bills. It is settled with a certified funds check and HIGHLY traceable as to the origins. In all 50 states, inheritance is NOT community property. Even if the certified funds check is converted in to cash, there are ample records to state what the original amount was and again, NOT part of community property.
Moving money around often to get maximum return? You sir apparently know nothing about finance. Here's a clue....moving money around does not give any return other than to the broker who conducted the transaction.
I highly doubt you have anything to worry about. If an estate is settled in cash, then the amount of money is so small, so negligible that a pair of quality shoes cost more.....hardly worth an offshore account.
Bascially Galt seems to be upset that he married and the laws of the state he lived in applied to his marriage. If he did not agree with the laws he should have never married.
He also seems to believe that a SAHM/W has no value. And thus should simply be kicked to the curb when he was done with her.
Bascially Galt seems to be upset that he married and the laws of the state he lived in applied to his marriage. If he did not agree with the laws he should have never married.
He also seems to believe that a SAHM/W has no value. And thus should simply be kicked to the curb when he was done with her.
Galt's a 16 year old boy who was turned down once to many. His grasp of community property and basic finance says it all because naturally, an estate is settled in cash....cash that needs to be moved around often to "maximize" return and keep away from the evil wife. Sounds like a kid with a piggybank who hides it from his younger brother. I'm sure Credit Suisse is just waiting for his phone call.
Bascially Galt seems to be upset that he married and the laws of the state he lived in applied to his marriage. If he did not agree with the laws he should have never married.
He also seems to believe that a SAHM/W has no value. And thus should simply be kicked to the curb when he was done with her.
I knew about the laws as they were at the time. After I married, however, they passed the “no-fault divorce” law, providing that my wife could divorce me at any time and with no reason but her own convenience. This includes the right to divorce me to go stay with her lover, and community property law still applies! This puts me in the position of having to finance their new love affair, with money I inherited and which I worked my butt off for for years, and which she did nothing whatsoever to help me make. As I mentioned before, she doesn’t even know how I make my money!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Therealbtighteyes(Butthead)
Galt's a 16 year old boy who was turned down once to many. His grasp of community property and basic finance says it all because naturally, an estate is settled in cash....cash that needs to be moved around often to "maximize" return and keep away from the evil wife. Sounds like a kid with a piggybank who hides it from his younger brother. I'm sure Credit Suisse is just waiting for his phone call.
You obviously know nothing, whatsoever, about law, taxes or investing. “Cash” refers to bank deposits which, because they accumulate interest, generate community property. The law in my state holds that unless the exact amount of community versus separate property in an account can be proven, to the dollar, the account is all community property
I have a suggestion. Why don‘t you both put the weed down for 24 hours (You can do it!) and then answer this question: Would you agree with me that no one owes anything, to anyone, until and unless this debt is proven valid by clear, demonstrated evidence??
2Likes
Re: Community Property: An Anachronism Today? 
