 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Aug 18, 2013 - 8:19 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
mastadge
(Member)
|
In the US, according to Wikipedia, "In 2002 (latest survey data as of 2012), 29% of first marriages among women aged 15–44 were disrupted (ended in separation, divorce or annulment) within 10 years. Beyond the 10-year window, population survey data is lacking, but forecasts and estimates provide some understanding. It is commonly claimed that half of all marriages in the United States eventually end in divorce, an estimate possibly based on the fact that in any given year, the number of marriages is about twice the number of divorces. Using 1995 data, National Survey of Family Growth forecast in 2002 a 43% chance that first marriages among women aged 15–44 would be disrupted within 15 years. More recently, having spoken with academics and National Survey of Family Growth representatives, PolitiFact.com estimated in 2012 that the lifelong probability of a marriage ending in divorce is 40%–50%.
"Divorce rates have been dropping during the last few decades. Data indicates that marriages have lasted longer in the 21st century than they did in the 1990s."
But who knows how this kind of thing is skewed by serial divorcers.
As for this: Don't know if it's true but it seems unfair given it is HIS money and because she's a female it's automatic./
It's not automatic. When a wealthy working woman divorces, she often ends up paying alimony to her ex. But ignoring pre-nups and the like for a moment, given that marriage is, in part, the contractual union of people into a single legal unit. If all of each individual's assets become the shared assets of the marriage partnership, then if that partnership disintegrates it wouldn't be too hard to argue that those assets should be split equitably rather than in proportion to who provided what to the bank account.
though acknowledging the woman is usually in charge of child bearing and can see it to a degree but the wealthier the male is it seems an unfair advantage, like "Oh, I need that much to survive!" bullocks.
Well it's not just that. I won't pretend to know how these things work with very short marriages between very wealthy people, but when a couple divorces after a decade or two, in many cases one partner will have had diminished earnings over that period (for reasons of child-rearing, homemaking, etc) that may not have been diminished if not for the marriage. In those cases I don't think it's unreasonable at all to divide assets evenly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
