4 ms·

If that's how the system works, isn't that an incentive for the partner, the wife in this case, to divorce their spouse to get increased control? I don't know h

If that's how the system works, isn't that an incentive for the partner, the wife in this case, to divorce their spouse to get increased control? I don't know how much control she has at the moment being married to the person that actually owns the stocks, but if she gets 50% in a divorce that sounds like a financial jackpot. That's akin to state sponsored theft IMO.

bradenb 8y ago
> I don't know how much control she has at the moment being married to the person that actually owns the stocks, but if she gets 50% in a divorce that sounds like a financial jackpot. That's akin to state sponsored theft IMO. I don't understand this comment. Marriage is not a social convention, it's a legal contract. Saying that she won a jackpot or somehow did something devious shows a huge level of misunderstanding.
- sorenjan 8y ago
  My point is that if she stays married she has no control over the company, if she divorces and gets 50% of her husband's stocks she gets a lot of control. Close to $50 billion last time I checked. That's a legal contract that makes no sense, why would anyone stay married if they could gain $x billion from a divorce?
  - bradenb 8y ago
    From my perspective, his wife was there to help enable the creation of Amazon. Jeff Bezos entered a contract when he got married where he believed an equal division of assets made sense. He apparently believed that contract made sense for 25 years. Who are we to say now that she shouldn't be entitled to half? > why would anyone stay married if they could gain $x billion from a divorce? Why not? Two people share a pool of $50b (obviously it's not _that_ simple). Seems like plenty to me. Divorce means you are 1 person with your own $25b pool. Unless she was somehow prevented from using the shared pool of money I'm not seeing a huge benefit here. If her goals with money were so drastically different than that of her husband's then I think that's as valid a reason for divorce as any: diverging goals and interests.
    - sorenjan 8y ago
      > From my perspective, his wife was there to help enable the creation of Amazon. I don't know what she did or didn't do, so I don't want to discuss this case specifically. But the idea that your wife or husband contributes half of your work is not something I agree with. I understand that if one of them spent their whole married life prioritizing their home and family instead of their career so the other one could focus on theirs it makes sense to divide the assets using other metrics than who payed for it. But there have to be a limit, someone spending their days at home or out shopping is not worth millions or billions of their partner's money. After all, choosing to not focus on your own career is your choice. Do you feel the same about negative things married people create? Should spouses share prison sentences if one of them commit crimes, like financial scams? If he would have been heavily in debt, should she share that too? > diverging goals and interests. I agree that's a valid reason for divorce. I don't agree that she should be entitled to 50% of his property (or that he should get 50% of hers, but it's a bit unequal in this situation).
      - 3zra 8y ago
        > But there have to be a limit, someone spending their days at home or out shopping is not worth millions or billions of their partner's money I have a hard time believing anyone's time is "worth millions or billions".
      - bradenb 8y ago
        > But the idea that your wife or husband contributes half of your work is not something I agree with. How do you know what would have been accomplished without that person's spouse managing the home? What if Jeff Bezos couldn't devote nearly as much time to Amazon if he had to take kids to appointments or be there when a contractor was at the house? And what if those diversions caused Amazon to be a flop? I would say that those contributions which were key to the success of the company absolutely do entitle you to 50%. Now, I do think there's a legal argument to be made if that is clearly not the case, but a healthy person should have cut ties in that type of relationship before wealth was developed anyway. Presumably staying in the relationship after 25 years and after the accumulation of so much wealth meant that both parties were fine with an equal division of the assets.

bradenb 8y ago

> I don't know how much control she has at the moment being married to the person that actually owns the stocks, but if she gets 50% in a divorce that sounds like a financial jackpot. That's akin to state sponsored theft IMO. I don't understand this comment. Marriage is not a social convention, it's a legal contract. Saying that she won a jackpot or somehow did something devious shows a huge level of misunderstanding.

sorenjan 8y ago
My point is that if she stays married she has no control over the company, if she divorces and gets 50% of her husband's stocks she gets a lot of control. Close to $50 billion last time I checked. That's a legal contract that makes no sense, why would anyone stay married if they could gain $x billion from a divorce?
- bradenb 8y ago
  From my perspective, his wife was there to help enable the creation of Amazon. Jeff Bezos entered a contract when he got married where he believed an equal division of assets made sense. He apparently believed that contract made sense for 25 years. Who are we to say now that she shouldn't be entitled to half? > why would anyone stay married if they could gain $x billion from a divorce? Why not? Two people share a pool of $50b (obviously it's not _that_ simple). Seems like plenty to me. Divorce means you are 1 person with your own $25b pool. Unless she was somehow prevented from using the shared pool of money I'm not seeing a huge benefit here. If her goals with money were so drastically different than that of her husband's then I think that's as valid a reason for divorce as any: diverging goals and interests.
  - sorenjan 8y ago
    > From my perspective, his wife was there to help enable the creation of Amazon. I don't know what she did or didn't do, so I don't want to discuss this case specifically. But the idea that your wife or husband contributes half of your work is not something I agree with. I understand that if one of them spent their whole married life prioritizing their home and family instead of their career so the other one could focus on theirs it makes sense to divide the assets using other metrics than who payed for it. But there have to be a limit, someone spending their days at home or out shopping is not worth millions or billions of their partner's money. After all, choosing to not focus on your own career is your choice. Do you feel the same about negative things married people create? Should spouses share prison sentences if one of them commit crimes, like financial scams? If he would have been heavily in debt, should she share that too? > diverging goals and interests. I agree that's a valid reason for divorce. I don't agree that she should be entitled to 50% of his property (or that he should get 50% of hers, but it's a bit unequal in this situation).
    - 3zra 8y ago
      > But there have to be a limit, someone spending their days at home or out shopping is not worth millions or billions of their partner's money I have a hard time believing anyone's time is "worth millions or billions".
    - bradenb 8y ago
      > But the idea that your wife or husband contributes half of your work is not something I agree with. How do you know what would have been accomplished without that person's spouse managing the home? What if Jeff Bezos couldn't devote nearly as much time to Amazon if he had to take kids to appointments or be there when a contractor was at the house? And what if those diversions caused Amazon to be a flop? I would say that those contributions which were key to the success of the company absolutely do entitle you to 50%. Now, I do think there's a legal argument to be made if that is clearly not the case, but a healthy person should have cut ties in that type of relationship before wealth was developed anyway. Presumably staying in the relationship after 25 years and after the accumulation of so much wealth meant that both parties were fine with an equal division of the assets.