FXKing2012: She gave him emotional and psychological support while he was acting which must have helped advance his acting career.
She probably also took care of the home front while he was away acting and making money, so she has a right to some of the money because she contributed.

The judge and the entire western world who think emotional and psychological support should be monetized are not fo0ls.

FXKing2012: She gave him emotional and psychological support while he was acting which must have helped advance his acting career.
She probably also took care of the home front while he was away acting and making money, so she has a right to some of the money because she contributed.

The judge and the entire western world who think emotional and psychological support should be monetized are not fo0ls.

FXKing2012: She gave him emotional and psychological support while he was acting which must have helped advance his acting career.
She probably also took care of the home front while he was away acting and making money, so she has a right to some of the money because she contributed.

The judge and the entire western world who think emotional and psychological support should be monetized are not fo0ls.

dayokanu:

The food she ate in that time? The house she lived in that time, The money she had access to in that time who provided it?

FXKing2012:
Both of them because she is also working. The bills must have been shared as is the custom in the U.S, it's in Africa that the man picks all the bills.

Records reportedly show that Van Der Beek's monthly income is $35,000, while McComb brings in only $1,750 a month.

FXKing2012:
Both of them because she is also working. The bills must have been shared as is the custom in the U.S, it's in Africa that the man picks all the bills.

dayokanu:

You mean her salary of less than $2000 a month was what she was eating in the years of marriage? Thats almost equal to nothing. The average student makes that doing school jobs She is making about $10/hour. Thats about what a worker in Mcdonalds, KFC or Burger King makes. The amount she makes in some states barely puts her above the poverty line

So you mean their multi million dollar mortgage of the house they were staying was paid from her $1750 per month? the expensive restaurants they visit was from that, the food they eat, the domestic help she had, the luxurious car she drove was from her freaking $1750 per month

An average worker in Zenith bank Nigeria earns more than that

Sagamite: But the person thinks he needs to pay her.

Her emotional and psychpological support cannot be applied to herself to increase her income? She gives it to him to make his income?

Logic of a pure pathological person.

dayokanu:

You mean her salary of less than $2000 a month was what she was eating in the years of marriage? Thats almost equal to nothing. The average student makes that doing school jobs She is making about $10/hour. Thats about what a worker in Mcdonalds, KFC or Burger King makes. The amount she makes in some states barely puts her above the poverty line

So you mean their multi million dollar mortgage of the house they were staying was paid from her $1750 per month? the expensive restaurants they visit was from that, the food they eat, the domestic help she had, the luxurious car she drove was from her freaking $1750 per month

An average worker in Zenith bank Nigeria earns more than that

dayokanu:

The excellent support cant be used to increase her own earning power and make her useful in life. Her psychological power is to make other people rich and herself poor

FXKing2012:
I said they split the bills, I never said she picked them.The normal thing is to share the expenses based on percentage of earning. So if they both spend, for example, 20% of their monthly earning on bills, then that's considered as splitting it 50/50 because they are spending thesame percentage of earning.

FXKing2012:
I said they split the bills, I never said she picked them.The normal thing is to share the expenses based on percentage of earning. So if they both spend, for example, 20% of their monthly earning on bills, then that's considered as splitting it 50/50 because they are spending thesame percentage of earning.

dayokanu:

Their monthly mortgage alone might be 10,000 feeding and entertainment might be another 20,000 car payment another 10k, Household maintenance another 20k

Total almost 60K and she contributes how much? $900? Leaving the guy to contribute the remaining 59K

In this case actually she would be spending the whole salary while the dude picks the total bill of the house and even give her money for maintenance

FXKing2012:
So long they contributed same percentage of income then they contributed 50/50.

Spousal support doesnt mean the guy gives everything he's got to the woman, he's only gonna give a part of his wealth to support the person who helped him achieve emotional and psychological support when his career could have suffered when he was emotionally and psychologically down.

And let's not forget it goes both ways: women also pay spousal support or alimony if she earns more than the man.

FXKing2012:
So long they contributed same percentage of income then they contributed 50/50.

Spousal support doesnt mean the guy gives everything he's got to the woman, he's only gonna give a part of his wealth to support the person who helped him achieve emotional and psychological support when his career could have suffered when he was emotionally and psychologically down.

And let's not forget it goes both ways: women also pay spousal support or alimony if she earns more than the man.

fresh_dude: Let it go man, it's not about who's right or wrong, but what's right or wrong. By now, even to you, the truth should be obvious. No use digging yourself deeper. Admit your mistake and move on already. Damn!

fresh_dude: Let it go man, it's not about who's right or wrong, but what's right or wrong. By now, even to you, the truth should be obvious. No use digging yourself deeper. Admit your mistake and move on already. Damn!

FXKing2012:
I have reason to question your stability.

Sagamite:

He is either one of the two:

1) A product of the Nigerian failed education system where the approach to public education is ("I no go carry last" ) defiance and you exhaust the mentality of "I no go gree. I go hold your cloth. You must kill me today before I gree." to save face when the product's idiocy is exposed.

2) An unfortunate mental patient that our non-existent mental health programme, due to corruption, cannot address. Many of his kind walk the streets of Nigeria without any medication to ease their mental health issues.

fresh_dude: I'm a little confused as to what you mean by stability. But I'll help/humour you:
1. Mental Stability- On point.
2. Penile Stability- Unwavering.
3. Intellectual Stability- Solid as a rock.
4. Financial Stability- Well, improving.
Hope I could help?

fresh_dude: I'm a little confused as to what you mean by stability.
4. Financial Stability- Well, improving.

FXKing2012:
Now I see where your frustration lies, somehow I knew I had to question your stability.

FXKing2012:
Now I see where your frustration lies, somehow I knew I had to question your stability.

fresh_dude:
PS: Do you realise that in the 'developed world', the divorce rate would record a steep decline if the laws were reviewed based on Saga's criteria(sane criteria)?

FXKing2012:
Do you realise that in the 'underdveloped world', women are constantly abused and mistreated in their homes due to the laws that are heavily biased in favour of men?

FXKing2012:
Do you realise that in the 'underdveloped world', women are constantly abused and mistreated in their homes due to the laws that are heavily biased in favour of men?

dayokanu:

And stealing from men to pay women is the way to stop the abuse? How has that reduced abuse and women violence in those places?

FXKing2012:
Do you realise that in the 'underdveloped world', women are constantly abused and mistreated in their homes due to the laws that are heavily biased in favour of men?

FXKing2012:
The law would make men respect women more and treat them much better than is the case at present.

FXKing2012:
The law would make men respect women more and treat them much better than is the case at present.

And it's wrong to say 'stealing from men to pay women' because it goes both ways; the woman also pays if she earns more than the man. The wealthier party settles the less financially bouyant party for support given....has nothing to do with gender.

fresh_dude: Herein lies your problem, it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to think outside

NO. The law should make either sex respect the other. It's just switching one bias for the other with the present system.