Is it right for a spouse to be entitled (by law to 50%) of one's wealth

Are divorce proceedings outcomes really more fair and justifiable in the West? Or is it too biased and total rubbish?

Why should anyone be entitled to 50% of your sweat and even be demanding money every month all in the name that they are "used to a lifestyle"? Why should one person be responsible for the lifestyle of someone they do not wish to be with anymore?

Does it make sense for a partner to demand $80,000 a month for a single child's maintenance?

What is the ideal separation of wealth if you were asked?

She keeps hers and I keep mine - that is the ideal case.

Now in the situation where she has made sacrifices to enable me earn the wealth that I did, she will deserve some of it.

It all depends on the initial ideas during the conception of marriage - as long as they agree on how things should be split and clearly document that, then there will be no problems.

If a man is rich, why should his child not get $80,000 for uptake?

debosky:

She keeps hers and I keep mine - that is the ideal case.

Now in the situation where she has made sacrifices to enable me earn the wealth that I did, she will deserve some of it.

It all depends on the initial ideas during the conception of marriage - as long as they agree on how things should be split and clearly document that, then there will be no problems.

If a man is rich, why should his child not get $80,000 for uptake?

How many women would be happy to sign a prenup?

Secondly, can you explain, how one will spend $80,000 on a child a month? What will she spend it on, gold nappies? Surely any judge with a brain in is head will know that 90% of this is going into the woman's pocket (or Jimmy Choo's annual revenue).

Let me use a real life example and use the child allowance being claimed by Kelis for Naz's child, $20,000 a month?

Sagamite:

How many women would be happy to sign a prenup?

Secondly, can you explain, how one will spend $80,000 on a child a month? What will she spend it on, gold nappies? Surely any judge with a brain in is head will know that 90% of this is going into the woman's pocket (or Jimmy Choo's annual revenue).

If you're a rich man, you better sign one else don't complain if the judge does the signing away of your assets.

It's not a matter of need per se - can the dad afford it? If yes, then the child is entitled to get it. The child may need to have expensive medical care, or go to exclusive Swiss schools or some other outrageous treats that rich kids get.

debosky:

If you're a rich man, you better sign one else don't complain if the judge does the signing away of your assets.

It's not a matter of need per se - can the dad afford it? If yes, then the child is entitled to get it. The child may need to have expensive medical care, or go to exclusive Swiss schools or some other outrageous treats that rich kids get.

I think there should be a reasonable minimum threshold for a Higher Rate Earner (and a minimum for Middle and Lower as well), and anything above that should be the father's choice.

Who is the Judge to dictate the lifestyle that the child should live, I think this decision is the privilege of the father/mother (whichever is funding it). I might be rich but do not want to send my child to an exclusive Swiss school as I don't believe in it. Who is the State to determine that is where I should send my child?

I might be crazily rich but don't want my child to be driving a Ferrari at the age of 16.

So I am sorry, all the child is entitled to is a significant minimum that makes sense enough to show the child is not neglected, not the right to be spoilt, that is each individual parent's decision IMO and not the State to demand.

debosky:

If you're a rich man, you better sign one else don't complain if the judge does the signing away of your assets.
[size=14pt]100% true [/size]
It's not a matter of need per se - can the dad afford it? If yes, then the child is entitled to get it. The child may need to have expensive medical care, or go to exclusive Swiss schools or some other outrageous treats that rich kids get.

Sagamite:

How many women would be happy to sign a prenup?

Secondly, can you explain, how one will spend $80,000 on a child a month? What will she spend it on, gold nappies? Surely any judge with a brain in is head will know that 90% of this is going into the woman's pocket (or Jimmy Choo's annual revenue).

Let me use a real life example and use the child allowance being claimed by Kelis for Naz's child, $20,000 a month?

if she is not prepare to sign and you live in the west plus you have more than your mortage and car then you are probably storing up trouble for your PLAN B women.

i dont wish divorce on my worst enemies.

JJYOU:

if she is not prepare to sign and you live in the west plus you have more than your mortage and car then you are probably storing up trouble for your PLAN B women.

Explain please.

JJYOU:

i dont wish divorce on my worst enemies.

Sagamite:

Explain please.

have too many people taken to the cleaners by free loading plan B mostly naija and ghana women. i dont like the idea of using someone to climb any ladder in life. if you dont want to marry someone genuinely dont but if you marry and start trying to get what you have not laboured for that is wicked and obscene in my book especially when you have religious sanctimonious people doing it.

in the last 10yrs i have had close people whose only mistake in life was believe a "this woman is good" recommendation. some have lost properties and cash while some cant even find themselves now. it is sad.

JJYOU:

have too many people taken to the cleaners by free loading plan B mostly naija and ghana women. i dont like the idea of using someone to climb any ladder in life. if you dont want to marry someone genuinely dont but if you marry and start trying to get what you have not laboured for that is wicked and obscene in my book especially when you have religious sanctimonious people doing it.

in the last 10yrs i have had close people whose only mistake in life was believe a "this woman is good" recommendation. some have lost properties and cash while some cant even find themselves now. it is sad.

Give us a few highlights if you can.

debosky:

Now in the situation where she has made sacrifices to enable me earn the wealth that I did, she will deserve some of it.

Lest not forget, debosky made a good point here. The degree of the "deserved some" is key here.

Sagamite:



Give us a few highlights if you can.

Lest not forget, debosky made a good point here. The degree of the "deserved some" is key here.

Sagamite:



Give us a few highlights if you can.

Lest not forget, debosky made a good point here. The degree of the "deserved some" is key here.

there is no doubt some women deserves to be taken of for life if you as the man demands she doesnt work and you have children that must be schooled and taken care of.

but when you have a woman you brought all the way from nigeria via marriage managed to just to stay in the relationship for 1 yr with a boy friend you never knew on the side and still had the cheek to be demanding what she has not worked for as settlement would you think that was fair?

mind you they had no child between them becos she knew from day one she was not going to stay in the marriage but just wait long enough for her permanent stay to come through.  she still managed to get a £150,000 cash settlement cos the guy was getting pissed cos the case was dragging on too long.  is that fair in your book?

Sagamite:

Lest not forget, debosky made a good point here. The degree of the "deserved some" is key here.

Prenuptial agreement! If you don't sign that, it's left to the ingenuity of her lawyers and the leanings of the judge.

If you make say $1m while your wife decides to be a stay at home mom to take care of the kids thereby forfeiting income, I think she deserves 50% of it.

I don't think thresholds should exist, because then your losses are 'limited' from divorcing. The laws still favour people staying together, so the financial pains are like a compelling factor to stay together. The key is agreeing before hand.

Either that, or let the assets be owned by your children with you as sole custodian.

@ topic

if you run after anything in skirt, then why cant the woman get 50%?

If she doesnt, some other half naked female will get it later anyway.

as long as the lady knows how to use and display her assets well, why are people complaining now when they didnt complain when the thing was sweet?




besides, in Nigeria, dont those rich polygamists settle all their wives anyway?

Then have a pre-nup be4 the wedding.
Here is my take on it.
If you have been married for a good period of time, and the woman genuinely loves you, i think it is only right for her to worth half of what you worth, cos she has given her life, her body and dedicated it all to you and you alone, and most of the times, when a marriage hits the rock, it is often the fault of us, the men, so a man wanna have a night stand and run away with a mistress and yet leaves the woman out in the cold, for her to go and hawk gala while, he go on expensive trips with some mumbo jumbo.
Even terrible when the woman and the man suffers together to make the money and the woman is kicked out when they are now comfy, only for another blonde to come and enjoy the sweat of the other woman.
So i think under all these circumstances, the woman should be well paid.
However, if the marriage is not long enuf to determine if the woman really love the man, or the woman is the one that asked for a divorce cos she is no more feeling the man, then, she shd be given NOTHING, but if she has custody of the kids, the woman shd be paid child support, cos the kids are the man's and a real man dont need to be forced to take care of her kids.

Marriage is becoming more of a contract.Agreements are signed front and back even before entering the marriage.Both parties sign and wait for doomsday   
@Topic,Pre-nup seems to be the ans.Everyone knows from the begining whats in it for him/her just in case if things get bad.
Wondering if this 50-50 stuff works in 9ja. . . women are kicked out daily,widows are suffering.

ifyalways:

Marriage is becoming more of a contract.Agreements are signed front and back even before entering the marriage.Both parties sign and wait for doomsday
@Topic,Pre-nup seems to be the ans.Everyone knows from the begining whats in it for him/her just in case if things get bad.

I agree with you and these are some of the reasons why marriages are collapsing, but better to be save than sorry

debosky:

If you make say $1m while your wife decides to be a stay at home mom to take care of the kids thereby forfeiting income, I think she deserves 50% of it.

I see sense in this.

If she takes care of the home for a significant period (4 years plus) and your asset is moderate then 50-50 is a good option.

The one I see as a problem is the significant asset ($5m plus) which I see as more as usually a result of exceptional ability and intelligence of one party in the marriage.

debosky:

I don't think thresholds should exist, because then your losses are 'limited' from divorcing. The laws still favour people staying together, so the financial pains are like a compelling factor to stay together. The key is agreeing before hand.

Correct me if I am wrong, but as it stands, in divorce proceedings your partner only shares your wealth, not your debts.

Do three things:

1. sign a prenup

2. Keep MOST of your assets in Nigeria

3. Marry a woman who truly loves you and you both keep divorce out of your marriage

I'll go with option 3. No stress there at all.

tpiah:

@ topic

if you run after anything in skirt, then why cant the woman get 50%?

If she doesnt, some other half naked female will get it later anyway.

as long as the lady knows how to use and display her assets well, why are people complaining now when they didnt complain when the thing was sweet?

besides, in Nigeria, dont those rich polygamists settle all their wives anyway?

What an argument. Why should she get 50% because the man ran after skirt, is that agianst the law? If not, so why should the law be used for the punitive response?

Fhemmmy:

If you have been married for a good period of time, and the woman genuinely loves you, i think it is only right for her to worth half of what you worth, cos she has given her life, her body and dedicated it all to you and you alone,

And so?

This argument is too weak. A woman loves me, so she must take half of my assets because she gave me her life and body? Is she an ashewo?

Has she done more for me than my parents have ever done for me? Can my parent that have done far more even claim 1% of my assets from me?

Fhemmmy:

and most of the times, when a marriage hits the rock, it is often the fault of us, the men, so a man wanna have a night stand and run away with a mistress and yet leaves the woman out in the cold, for her to go and hawk gala while, he go on expensive trips with some mumbo jumbo.

OK, lets say this is relevant, so if the law is going to start awarding punitive measures based on infidelity, then for that law to make sense then it must make provisions for all scenarios. Am I right?

So lets say a man was worth $10m and is a dedicated husband, and then his wife (worth $200K) cheats on him with another man and moves in with him, would the court award him half of her assets as punitive measures for her infidelity? Or do you think the law would make her go scot-free with her evil acts?

He would probably, by law, be ordered to pay her significant alimony whilst simultaneously being ordered to vacate the family home for her (and her lover as the law can not stop her from living with this person). So does your infidelity punishment still make sense?

He would also probably get blamed for the break up as well as he must have "not paid attention to her needs whilst making money that is why she cheated". 

Can you see why your argument is weak now?

Fhemmmy:

Even terrible when the woman and the man suffers together to make the money and the woman is kicked out when they are now comfy, only for another blonde to come and enjoy the sweat of the other woman.

If she can demonstrate her direct contribution to wealth creation, then I see no reason why she can not get her share of it.

And contribution is not giving your body.

davidylan:

Do three things:

1. sign a prenup

2. Keep MOST of your assets in Nigeria

3. Marry a woman who truly loves you and you both keep divorce out of your marriage

I'll go with option 3. No stress there at all.

Good points but 3 is the one you least have control over, so I think it is the most stressful.

Sagamite:

Is it right for a spouse to be entitled (by law to 50%) of one's wealth

It's depressing.

Are divorce proceedings outcomes really more fair and justifiable in the West? Or is it too biased and total rubbish?

No way in hell are they justifiable. . . . .this is why we have F4J organisation in the UK.

Why should anyone be entitled to 50% of your sweat and even be demanding money every month all in the name that they are "used to a lifestyle"? Why should one person be responsible for the lifestyle of someone they do not wish to be with anymore?

It's ludicrous. . . . .I can't explain how that was worked out.
A man picks a woman from nowhere. . . . .adds taste and posh factor to her life and 2 years later, she wants 50% of ma wealth?
It's very unfair.

Does it make sense for a partner to demand $80,000 a month for a single child's maintenance?

It makes no iota of sense. Those judges are rogues.

What is the ideal separation of wealth if you were asked?

The man keeps his stuffs, the woman keeps hers. . . . .whatever they both own should be sold and split 50-50.

Sagamite:

And so?

This argument is too weak. A woman loves me, so she must take half of my assets because she gave me her life and body? Is she an ashewo?

The woman is no asewo, but there is emotional torment that she will have to go thru by you living her for another woman, dont forget that you are the one that decided to leave and not her, and this is a woman that has been with you for some years and all of a sudden the home that she thought, she has built with a man that she thought would be hers for ever, now wanna leave, so you expect such woman to now go and do what? just walk away and say God blesses you?

Sagamite:

Has she done more for me than my parents have ever done for me? Can my parent that have done far more even claim 1% of my assets from me?

The parents most of the time actually enjoys a lot of the kids wealth, just not being counted, and trust me, what the "good wife' is doing for the man, is way more than what the parents has done for the man, yes, the parents trained the man, but after the training, takes a good wife to manage all that comes with the man, no man or woman is perfect.

Sagamite:

OK, lets say this is relevant, so if the law is going to start awarding punitive measures based on infidelity, then for that law to make sense then it must make provisions for all scenarios. Am I right?

There has to be some money or property given to the woman, regardless of what happened and to answer your next scenerio, when a divorce happens and the woman happens to be richer than the man, the man might be able to get some support from the wife, and from your scenerio, a man worths 10M and the woman has only 200K, common, even without the court getting involved, i see no reason why the man cant just share with the woman.


So lets say a man was worth $10m and is a dedicated husband, and then his wife (worth $200K) cheats on him with another man and moves in with him, would the court award him half of her assets as punitive measures for her infidelity? Or do you think the law would make her go scot-free with her evil acts?

Can you see why your argument is weak now?

Sagamite:

If she can demonstrate her direct contribution to wealth creation, then I see no reason why she can not get her share of it.

And contribution is not giving your body.

How do a woman shows her direct contribution to the success of the man.
When the man is on the street making the money and the woman holds the home together to make sure there is a sweet home for the man to come to, how do u calculate that.
When the woman is there for the man to share his feelings and the bad day with her, how do u calculate that?
Not everything has a mathematical value to them

Fhemmmy:

The woman is no asewo, but there is emotional torment that she will have to go thru by you living her for another woman, dont forget that you are the one that decided to leave and not her, and this is a woman that has been with you for some years and all of a sudden the home that she thought, she has built with a man that she thought would be hers for ever, now wanna leave, so you expect such woman to now go and do what? just walk away and say God blesses you?

I will respond to this below.

Fhemmmy:

The parents most of the time actually enjoys a lot of the kids wealth, just not being counted, and trust me, what the "good wife' is doing for the man, is way more than what the parents has done for the man, yes, the parents trained the man, but after the training, takes a good wife to manage all that comes with the man, no man or woman is perfect.

Sorry, I don't get your arguments here.

Your mother went through labour to have you.

Your parents spend money and sweat to raise you for typically 21 years and still acts as assurance for the next 20 years just in case something goes wrong.

They sent you to good schools and spend hours in the evening tutoring you which led to your development and your ability for wealth creation but yet you feel that your wife does more than them and is entitled to claim, under the law, you wealth more than them? ^{Because she slept with you?}

Please explain how you came to this conclusion. ^{I am scratching my head so much, I am almost bleeding}

Fhemmmy:

There has to be some money or property given to the woman, regardless of what happened and to answer your next scenerio, when a divorce happens and the woman happens to be richer than the man, the man might be able to get some support from the wife, and from your scenerio, a man worths 10M and the woman has only 200K, common, even without the court getting involved, i see no reason why the man cant just share with the woman.

This covers my response as promised from above.

So if a man cheats then the woman is entitled to 50% of his wealth because he cheated. That makes sense to you?

But if a woman cheats then the man should still be the one to share his wealth. That makes sense to you?

What happened to your argument above of "but there is emotional torment that she will have to go thru by you living her for another woman"? That is irrelevant if it is a guy and he is richer?

Fhemmmy:

How do a woman shows her direct contribution to the success of the man.

By showing that without her contribution certain achievements would not have been made. OR indicate her actions that led to wealth creation in the relationship.

Don't get me wrong, I believe there should be some wealth allocated for a partner that has made sacrifices (loss of earnings and career progression) but it should not be automatically 50% when the asset is huge as this can be ascribed to the other partner's significant ability.

Fhemmmy:

When the man is on the street making the money and the woman holds the home together to make sure there is a sweet home for the man to come to, how do u calculate that.

What makes you think that (sweet home) is always the case in an affluent man's life? And what significance has a sweet home got to do with wealth creation?

Fhemmmy:

When the woman is there for the man to share his feelings and the bad day with her, how do u calculate that?
Not everything has a mathematical value to them

I share my feelings and bad days with my closest buddies and my sibling, can they claim my wealth because of that? Moreso considering by the time I marry, these buddies and sibling will have had more years of this interaction than my wife and will still be having it at the same degree as her.

And yet when I calculate it, their willingness to listen generates the result "zero" in my calculations of their claim to my assets.

I just take it as goodwill and friendship which are volunteered acts, not an investment. So the same should apply to my wife.

Sagamite:

I will respond to this below.

Sorry, I don't get your arguments here.

You mother went through labour to have you.

You parents spend money and sweat to raise you for typically 21 years and still acts as assurance for the next 20 years just in case something goes wrong.

They sent you to good schools and spend hours in the evening tutoring you which led to your development and your ability for wealth creation but yet you feel that your wife does more than them and is entitled to claim, under the law, you wealth more than them?

Please explain how you came to this conclusion. ^{I am scratching my head so much, I am almost bleeding}

This covers my response as promised from above.

So if a man cheats then the woman is entitled to 50% of his wealth because he cheated. That makes sense to you?

But if a woman cheats then the man should still be the one to share his wealth. That makes sense to you?

What happened to your argument above of "but there is emotional torment that she will have to go thru by you living her for another woman"? That is irrelevant if it is a guy and he is richer?


By showing that without her contribution certain achievements would not have been made. OR indicate her actions that led to wealth creation in the relationship.

Don't get me wrong, I believe there should be some wealth allocated for a partner that has made sacrifices (loss of earnings and career progression) but it should not be automatically 50% when the asset is huge as this can be ascribed to the other partner's significant ability.

What makes you think that (sweet home) is always the case in an affluent man's life? And what significance has a sweet home got to do with wealth creation?

I share my feelings and bad days with my closest buddies and my sibling, can they claim my wealth because of that?

I dont argue just for arguement purpose.
First of all, if your parents are still spending on you till you are 21, then i am short of words.
They paid to send me to a good school, however, it is nothing compared to a woman that will shares my sorrows and my pain, my mother laboured to give birth to me, which i am so glad and grateful for, however, once married, the woman now is the main one and have to love and respect her, cos even my mother will want same from me.
A woman dont have to show that without her some promotion in your life would not have been possible for you to be able to attribute such success to her, i think as long as she is and was in the picture while all that was going on, then, she is part of the success and that is why when people are writing a book and they wanna give credit to people, they give credit to people that have influence in their lives and not cos they were the reason the book was made possible.
You share your mind and all that with you buddies, great, but nothing compared to what your woman supposed to be.

Fhemmmy:

I dont argue just for arguement purpose.
First of all, if your parents are still spending on you till you are 21, then i am short of words.

Try and understand the word "typical".

And if one is based in Nigeria, it can even be up to the age of 28.

Fhemmmy:

They paid to send me to a good school, however, it is nothing compared to a woman that will shares my sorrows and my pain, my mother laboured to give birth to me, which i am so glad and grateful for, however, once married, the woman now is the main one and have to love and respect her, cos even my mother will want same from me.
A woman dont have to show that without her some promotion in your life would not have been possible for you to be able to attribute such success to her, i think as long as she is and was in the picture while all that was going on, then, she is part of the success and that is why when people are writing a book and they wanna give credit to people, they give credit to people that have influence in their lives and not cos they were the reason the book was made possible.
You share your mind and all that with you buddies, great, but nothing compared to what your woman supposed to be.

I guess you should also share you wealth with every single girlfriend after a break up as "they were in the picture" and shared "your sorrows and pain".

Sagamite:

Try and understand the word "typical".

And if one is based in Nigeria, it can even be up to the age of 28.

I guess you should also share you wealth with every single girlfriend after a break up as "they were in the picture" and shared "your sorrows and pain".

I never had signed a contract with the girlfriends and even without that contract, if there were some achievement that happened while together, sending her away without anything is just no kool.
Besides, in Nigeria some parents support the kids till they marry, i cant understand that cos the society dont see any problem in that, however, outside Nigeria, it is a different ball game.

Fhemmmy:

I never had signed a contract with the girlfriends and even without that contract, if there were some achievement that happened while together, sending her away without anything is just no kool.

Contract or no contract, you argument was "they were in the picture" and shared "your sorrows and pain".

So if you say that is the requirement for someone to lay claim to your wealth, then your girlfriends should qualify irrespective of contract.

I think where we differ significantly is my belief that exceptional wealth is due to ability and i have not gulped the argument from the biased West that they have used to cheat alot of men.

Although I do think women are being cheated in the Third World and need some minimum protection in regards to sharing of assets.

But no woman can ever be more "they were in the picture" and shared "your sorrows and pain" more than your parents and even siblings, so why should that be enough excuse to take you to the cleaners when your parents and siblings can not.

Fhemmmy:

Besides, in Nigeria some parents support the kids till they marry, i cant understand that cos the society dont see any problem in that, however, outside Nigeria, it is a different ball game.

You don't understand?

What are they suppose to do? Kick them out when their are no opportunities in the society?

Sagamite:


I think where we differ significantly is my belief that exceptional wealth is due to ability and i have not gulped the argument from the biased West that they have used to cheat alot of men.

The question is this - would this ability or exceptional achievement have been possible WITHOUT the partner? If this can be proven, then the partner doesn't deserve any part of it. But if this partner was the one encouraging, helping with advice, taking on the 'minor' problems so you could focus on the money making, then she is as entitled to every cent as you are.

But no woman can ever be more "they were in the picture" and shared "your sorrows and pain" more than your parents and even siblings, so why should that be enough excuse to take you to the cleaners when your parents and siblings can not.

Being in the picture is not the issue - we are all indebted to our parents/siblings and they fall into a different category. Now in terms of marriage, the two of you embarked on an exclusive journey - any proceeds from that journey go to the two parties first, and then the individuals can determine how to factor in parents and siblings.

debosky:

The question is this - would this ability or exceptional achievement have been possible WITHOUT the partner? If this can be proven, then the partner doesn't deserve any part of it. But if this partner was the one encouraging, helping with advice, taking on the 'minor' problems so you could focus on the money making, then she is as entitled to every cent as you are.

I completely agree except until we came to the 'minor problems'. If you are dealing with minor problems then your share should be minor.

The key is to look at whether if a partners contribution is removed what proportion of the wealth will not exist and what is the loss and limitation the partner has incurred due to sacrifices made for the relationship. The former can mean significant wealth for the partner and the latter should lead to 'reasonable' compenstation.

For example, if we remove Bill Gates wife from his life, would we still have Microsoft? Most likely a resounding Yes irrespective of whether she cooked and cleaned or not.

debosky:

Being in the picture is not the issue - we are all indebted to our parents/siblings and they fall into a different category. Now in terms of marriage, the two of you embarked on an exclusive journey - any proceeds from that journey go to the two parties first, and then the individuals can determine how to factor in parents and siblings.

One thing you guys have to start factoring in is that status quo does not necessarily mean the right outcome.

Exclusive journey is some idealistic nirvana. In some cases, it is pure torture, deceit and mayhem. And any good law should be able to factor this in decision making rather than make stupid, unrealistic assumptions especially when the assumption can lead to biase and the destruction of/injustice to one party's life.

Sagamite:

Contract or no contract, you argument was "they were in the picture" and shared "your sorrows and pain".

So if you say that is the requirement for someone to lay claim to your wealth, then your girlfriends should qualify irrespective of contract.

I think where we differ significantly is my belief that exceptional wealth is due to ability and i have not gulped the argument from the biased West that they have used to cheat alot of men.

Although I do think women are being cheated in the Third World and need some minimum protection in regards to sharing of assets.

But no woman can ever be more "they were in the picture" and shared "your sorrows and pain" more than your parents and even siblings, so why should that be enough excuse to take you to the cleaners when your parents and siblings can not.

You don't understand?

What are they suppose to do? Kick them out when their are no opportunities in the society?

I never said kick them out, not at all, and that was why i said in Nigeria it is a different ball game, even though, there are some opportunities for them, but they too kool to work in factory in Nigeria, but that is another day's conversation.

@sagamite na wah for u oh!!!!
so stingy! dont you want to pay for all the 'BODY WORK'. taking care of the children.
just imagine if she opened a cresturant or a creche or a dry cleaning rather than do all these at home for you FOR FREE would she not have even more money than you are supposed to give her.
GET A LIFE

namun:

@sagamite na wah for u oh!!!!
so stingy! dont you want to pay for all the 'BODY WORK'. taking care of the children.
just imagine if she opened a cresturant or a creche or a dry cleaning rather than do all these at home for you FOR FREE would she not have even more money than you are supposed to give her.
GET A LIFE

I hope you saw the following statements from me:

"If she takes care of the home for a significant period (4 years plus) and your asset is moderate then 50-50 is a good option.

The one I see as a problem is the significant asset ($5m plus) which I see as more as usually a result of exceptional ability and intelligence of one party in the marriage."

"If she can demonstrate her direct contribution to wealth creation, then I see no reason why she can not get her share of it."

"Don't get me wrong, I believe there should be some wealth allocated for a partner that has made sacrifices (loss of earnings and career progression) but it should not be automatically 50% when the asset is huge as this can be ascribed to the other partner's significant ability."

"The key is to look at whether if a partners contribution is removed what proportion of the wealth will not exist and what is the loss and limitation the partner has incurred due to sacrifices made for the relationship. The former can mean significant wealth for the partner and the latter should lead to 'reasonable' compenstation."

So how is that stingy?

A woman that is entrepreneurial will most likely open he business irrespective, there are women that do it every day.

That is not even the core of the argument, the one that is most senseless is the fact that the law requires you to sustain a lifestyle because "she is used to it".