tpiah!:

tiger's ex-wife was also from a rich home though.


at least well-connected even if not as rich as tiger.

How the fck can someone marry a man for 4 years and walk away with £5m upon divorce?

ferdiii:

Story

chaircover:

Pro, this is not a main argument but it shouldn't be overlooked. It cant be easy married to a rich man with all their excesses. Rich men can be the most loud, self centered and selfish & arrogant people. Money brings out the worst in people and lets face it, you have to be a certain kind of person to be able to climb all over everyone to get to the top especially in the corporate world.

chaircover:

I am not saying go for the jugular but I believe that if possible the kids should not be at a disadvantage because mummy and daddy decided that they no longer want to be together and if for example the kid was attending private school, then that kid should be able to remain there.

chaircover:

I have heard of some silly requests from women in alimony cases such as asking for £5000 a month on flowers but that is just plain silly.

tpiah!:

depends on net worth.

chaircover:

How do you calculate A & B? Lets leave C for now. I dont think either husband or wife will come up with the same figure for A & B and that is why the court decides.

chaircover:

Saga lets not forget that are a lot of male judges & members of Parliament etc who make, pass and enforce these laws

chaircover:

Yes 

chaircover:

These divorce settlements take the children into consideration especially if they will be living with mum

On who's net worth?

And why should it depend on it?

tpiah!:

whoever is richer.


some people have 5 dollars to give, others have 500 million to dispose of as they like.

should a person worth 500 million give 5 dollars?

tpiah!:

whoever is richer.


some people have 5 dollars to give, others have 500 million to dispose of as they like.

should a person worth 500 million give 5 dollars?

tpiah!:

well, if a matter has to go through the legal system, then it's out of the parties involved's hands.

others decide these things, not the warring factors.

tpiah!:

well, each lifestyle comes with risk.

you like sexy bodies, then you shouldnt complain if sexy bodies also like your money.

everybody has something they aim to achieve.

for some, its money via relationships, for others its the maximal amount of eye candy in their bed.

all's fair in love and war.

duduspace:

The law is an backside but most judges I know aren't and if you look deep within these cases, there are reasons for most settlement decisions taken which might not be immediately obvious.
Yes, some women are gold diggers but then some men are also stone hearted b*stards and people do exploit the law for their selfish gain.
You make the greatest mistake in life when you draw general conclusions without looking into intricacies of individual cases.

Sagamite:

Lets give you the freedom of thought and liberty of conjecture throwing.

Please explain to me, the range of possible reasons that would have made Heather Mills worthy of £24m.

Or you can also pick the one of the Miller woman I posted the link earlier. Explain to me the range of possible reasons that is logical for her to get £5m after 3 years of marriage without kids.

tpiah!:

Lets just assume they won the lottery. Or hit the jackpot.  Nobody said life is fair.

duduspace:

Firstly you think too much of yourself to think yu are granting me any freedom of thought, that statement is unnecesarily arrogant. I require no such freedom of you, I have it already.

duduspace:

Secondly, Heather Mills had a child for Sir. Paul and while everyone sees her as a gold digger (which I have no doubt that she is) should Sir Paul's daughter also suffer for the public perception of Heather Mills? From the judge's perspective, the child is entitled to the same quality of life she would have been entitled to if Heather was still legally married to Sir Paul and on the basis of that Heather Mills lawyers argued she was entitled to such an amount and the judge agreed with them. You can choose to believe what you want about the fairness of the settlement but that was the way the judge saw it and I'm bold to say that they have access to information that you still don't have till now.

duduspace:

I have not looked at the Miller case, but were you there when this man was toasting this woman and what he promised? You might not view it thus but like someone said previously, no one has the right to say he took someone from the streets and wants to return her there, that person in their own way have contributed something to the man's life whether he acknowledges it or not.

duduspace:

You are already taking up a position here that the man was treated unfairly without considering all the facts. It might not seem so to you but divorces are emotionally unsettling and that is enough cause to seek financial compensation. I am not arguing the fairness or otherwise of individual cases, you can try opening up individual threads for each one and lets discuss the merits and demerits of each case or better still if you get the opportunity to meet the judge of each case, ask them why they made such rulings but to call divorce settlement nonsense is for want of a better word pretty silly.

biolabee:

thanks jare ,  dudu ive said the same thing since but they persist in their near--thal ways
all they hv being bringing up are extreme examples of tiger, paul mc cartney, ross perot
what about the many middle class families

gold digging is not new u forget males call thier own sugar boy or gigolos or wateva?!

Sagamite:

That said, I find a system erring in determining to people the standard of life their kids should live based on their income.

I for one, if I was rich, would not want to spoil my kids. I will not send them to snubbish private schools. I would not buy them a Range Rover when they are 16. When (not if) they work in a fastfood joint/restaurant and they can save up to buy a Jeep, I would help them launch it. That is my choice and I should have a fundamental right to make that choice about how my kids should grow up and the mentality they develop.

The courts in a sane system should only be able to set a reasonable minimum standard of living for kids which can vary based on wealth, but should reach only

1bn and above 5%
<500m 10%
<100m 20%
<50m 30%
<20m 40%
>1 <5m 45%
<1m 50%

Sagamite:

First of all, when I said "Lets give", I did not mean myself, I meant everyone reading should allow you to conjecturise. If I meant myself, I would have said "Let me give you".

Sagamite:

Secondly, I do think a lot myself. For good reasons. I am confident, not arrogant.

Sagamite:

First of all, you made an error. The money (or majority of it) was awarded to Heather Mills as her worth in the Marriage. The child maintenance was a different award and different from spousal divorce settlements.

Sagamite:

That said, I find a system erring in determining to people the standard of life their kids should live based on their income.

I for one, if I was rich, would not want to spoil my kids. I will not send them to snubbish private schools. I would not buy them a Range Rover when they are 16. When (not if) they work in a fastfood joint/restaurant and they can save up to buy a Jeep, I would help them launch it. That is my choice and I should have a fundamental right to make that choice about how my kids should grow up and the mentality they develop.

The courts in a sane system should only be able to set a reasonable minimum standard of living for kids which can vary based on wealth, but should reach only a reasonably optimal maximum, not a luxury maximum.

Sagamite:

Sorry?

What kind of promise?

Na im born am that he has to take her of the streets and keep her off it?

Amsorry?

Emotionally unsettling?

So people should be penalised for not wanting to be with someone else anymore and the other party is upset?

What happened to human rights?

duduspace:

That is still an arrogant attitude, why on earth would you presuppose to speak for everyone reading? many of whom you've never even met to know their minds in case you've forgotten? thats an abnormal feeling of self importance.  
The forum already grants me the right to express myself, so I need no one's approval.

duduspace:

Good for you, I've not said yu're arrogant, but yu've exhibited arrogance as I've pointed to you above.

duduspace:

Well, it is left to the judges and lawyers to argue that out, if they've proved she is worth that much and a competent judge accepted, can you kindly point out your own reasons why you think she is not worth that much?  

duduspace:

You seem to be a very self absorbed person and give no thought to how your actions affect others at all and only able to look at things from a narrow and self seeking perspective, I'm struggling not to call you outright selfish. Are you aware at all that people would know that this girl is Sir. Paul's daughter?  
So while growing up she should not be able to appear in the same settings as all of his other children? should feel disadvantaged because her mum divorced Sir Paul?
Can I ask a simple question? did Sir Paul actually ever complain to you? are you sure even his legal team didn't agree that the daughter was entitled to that amount?  

Like I said and for emphasis, I'm not discussing individual cases here, it is the concept that Divorce settlements are wrong that I find silly. If you want to argue about Heather Mills then open up a thread for Heather Mill's settlement.

duduspace:

Nothing has happened to human rights here, a matured individual went before the courts (or some spiritual or earthly authority) and committed to a marriage, probably has a child in the marriage and now wants to back out of it, there are penalties to pay and it is called being responsible.
Like I pointed out, the law also gives you an opportunity for a pre-nup so be wise and go into marriage with your eyes wide opened.

biolabee:

most rich set up trusts for their kids to ensure they stay at the desired level
On rich pple u forget they have tax havens to shelter their weealth
iif i get u u are suggesting a tiered system
eg

this would be difficult to administer hence the equal rate across all people just like tax

biolabee:

What i mean by tier is that the system does not specifically identify u as rich and taxes u more
there is a flat rate
corporate tax is charged at 30% while individual is taxed up to 40 depending on the earning potential
so what do u propose if u say we are bogged down with old mentality thinking

dudu point taken, r u watching the wales debacle?

biolabee:

What i mean by tier is that the system does not specifically identify u as rich and taxes u more
there is a flat rate
corporate tax is charged at 30% while individual is taxed up to 40 depending on the earning potential
so what do u propose if u say we are bogged down with old mentality thinking

dudu point taken, r u watching the wales debacle?

Sagamite:

You erred again in your understanding.
First of all, I did not speak for them, I requested of them.
Secondly, I did not grant you, I urged you.

Sagamite:

I am intelligent enough to know I can not speak for people or grant freedom of speech to someone on a forum that is not mine.
I have no problem being wrongly regarded as arrogant, sometimes I actually urge it.

Sagamite:

No, it is left to legislators to make sane laws.

Sagamite:

Most times, the woman is not worth it because:

a) it is not her money
b) she did not earn it
c) she does not realistically have the prerequisite ability to earn it
d) someone else is being robbed to pay her money she is not worth

Sagamite:

If she is worth it like the BET or Deloitte wife, then that is good. Nannies/dental nurses are not worth $100m, even if the $100m is a mere 3% of the assets. In a sane system, people should leave relationship with what they put in (plus whatever their ex willingly wants to give).

Sagamite:

You seem to be someone that struggles to ratiocinate and comes up with illogical arguments, I am struggling not to call you 2 famous words I call people on NL.

Sagamite:

Have you for a second thought it is more of the responsibility of Paul McCartney to determine how his daughter is seen and in which settings she should appear, and not the courts' responsibility?

Sagamite:

And don't ask me dumb questions about who complained to me. We are assessing a situation of life here that could potentially affect me or anyone else in society, and using the Paul McCartney's case as a case study. I don't need Paul McCartney to complain to me before identifying wrong and something that can affect me. That is an example of the ratiocination you struggle with and the illogicality of your points I pointed out earlier.

Sagamite:

Penalties to pay?

Really? It is by force to remain married? I did not know that? Can you enlighten me?

Sagamite:

So the penalty only applies to one side?

Where is the penalty when a woman with 2 kids for a rich man cheats on him and then asks for a divorce? Does the penalty also fine her or she would still get his money because of the kids?

Or do you want to think and refine your statement?

biolabee:


dudu point taken, r u watching the wales debacle?

duduspace:

If at all I erred, in my understanding of what you meant, then it is because you were not clear in your statement, it is absurd for anyone to refer to themselves in the plural.

duduspace:

Another abnormal behaviour, why would anyone urge someone to consider them what they are not?  
well that is your own wahala, whatever rings your bell.

duduspace:

Your perception of sanity is different from another persons, from the perspective of those who made those laws you would as well be considered insane, silly or just plain ignorant to not understand what they are supposed to do for society.

duduspace:

a) Yes it is not her money but she is entitled to a portion of it by virtue of marriage
b) She doesn't need to, by virtue of marriage laws she is entitled to it
c) irrelevant
d) she didn't place a gun to his head when he made the choice to marry her

duduspace:

Well, a sane society doesn't agree with you so you can draw your conclusions as to your own sanity.

duduspace:

you're a bit of a clown. what 2 famous words? and what concerns me what your famous words are?  
call me whatever you want and stop feeling self important, you should know that not everyone is overawed by pompousity.

duduspace:

Have you for a second asked yourself why Paul McCartney found himself in the court in the first instance?  
Is Paul McCartney the only parent? or because he is the richer parent that means he should be the only one who determines what the child should or should not do?

duduspace:

I find it funny you sound so illogical yourself and accuse someone else of illogicality.
1. You are not Paul McCartney
2. You were not married to Heather Mills
3. You do not know the circumstances surrounding the marriage except that which you read in some papers
4. Paul McCartney has never complained to you
5. A competent court took a decision after listening to both sides

and you're here talking of logicality?
Maybe if you stop being so full of yourself, you might start to make some sense.

duduspace:

Yes, marriage is a contract and if terminated like most other contracts have penalties which can also be waived depending on circumstances. What you should be asking is what the penalties are and not whether it is by force to remain married. The fact that it can be terminated alone should already tell someone who considers himself logical that it is not by force.

duduspace:

No, I think it is you who needs to enhance the depth of your reasoning, it is quite shallow, one sided and myopic. Someone else could argue that Heather Mills is already getting less than she bargained for when she originally married Paul McCartney because she thought she was going to be with him for ever.
Your point is simple and seems reasonable to you but isn't in the eyes of the law. Yes you can marry and divorce when you choose to but you should look before you leap because there are other lives involved and the law will fight for those other lives.
If you can't see that then I give up on you.