5 ms·

Although there was a tax compliant way to accomplish everything they did, still without paying more to the US, The divorce started all this. Divorce laws are f

Although there was a tax compliant way to accomplish everything they did, still without paying more to the US, The divorce started all this. Divorce laws are far too simplistic and rely on the concept of a “unit” with both spouses being equal partners by mere nature of showing up. This seems to be a stretch of the imagination with a reality having diminishing returns. For example, even with a spouse providing some form of unpaid labor, the level of utility in how that helps the other spouse is not unlimited, it would be closer to (O)logn. It should have a specific value that is quantifiable. This does not seem to be part of discussions and in most places seems to be the most egregious thing one could suggest! In any other form of financial partnership, this is easy to quantify or at least there is greater flexibility in setting it up. One example - which I am not suggesting is applicable to marriage - is how vesting agreements really help give the (O)logn compensation path. I have seen some divorce laws that seem holistic, specifically Monaco’s. Which provides a limitation on alimony as well. For people that actually own assets outright (not mortgages but the whole asset) There is also fairly easy estate planning possibly even in “community property” states to separate assets from before a marriage. So thats another wealthy privilege. Fixing all of that would fix what would even be attempted to be listed in a divorce court proceeding.

davemp 6y ago
This is a pretty interesting take on divorce. I'd be hesitant to view marriage as a financial partnership though. To me, marriage is more of a life partnership where both parties are "all in". A lot of the benefits of having a "life partner" stem from having someone who unconditionally watches your back and keeps your needs in mind. You can't put a price on that type of a partnership by definition (you introduce a monetary condition). I agree that someone with real wealth could hire folks to manage their assets, administrate, listen to their thoughts/concerns, provide intimacy, etc, at the cost of a fraction of their net worth well below 50%. Maybe people worried about protecting their wealth should just hire out those roles instead of getting married. I wonder why they don't. :)
- vmception 6y ago
  > Maybe people worried about protecting their wealth should just hire out those roles instead of getting married. I wonder why they don't. :) A lot of people do. What point were you trying to make by assuming its not happening a lot?
- vmception 6y ago
  > I'd be hesitant to view marriage as a financial partnership though. Acknowledging the problems with the contract requires looking at the realities of the contract. The reality of that contract is that it has financial components and financial consequences, which are assumed to scale linearly, when that’s not true. Someone “having your back” could just as arbitrarily be worth 10% of assets or a retainer or a monthly rate. The point being that starting at 50% and working down is just as arbitrary. I would say it would not actually scale infinitely, just as much as a key salaried employee does not have compensation that scales proportionately to the earnings of that corporation. I absolutely do not care about how these comparisons make you feel as that is completely a product of conditioning. This is still a flawed contract, lets acknowledge that it is a flawed contract whether your line in the sand is “cant put a price on” or something else.
  - ddelt 6y ago
    Agreed - You stated more elegantly what I came here to reply with. I personally love the “idea” or concept of a marriage (the understanding and commitment of two humans to each other for pure love, devotion, or spiritual/religious reasons), but in practice, at least from what I’ve seen in the US, it’s very much about the legal aspects of the “marriage contract”, the financial and legal impacts, as well as to continue to promote the US agenda of the nuclear family unit.
  - davemp 6y ago
    > I absolutely do not care about how these comparisons make you feel as that is completely a product of conditioning. This is still a flawed contract, lets acknowledge that it is a flawed contract whether your line in the sand is “cant put a price on” or something else. This goes in reverse as well. The only significant reason to get married is social conditioning/pressure. Like I implied above, you can just hire those roles out and not enter the contract. Marriage is absolutely about feelings or else no one would agree to it. Marriage is not an employment contract, the comparison is fallacious. The conditions for breaking the contract are much more severe because you're not "supposed to" switch partners like you switch jobs. If you don't believe in marriage more power to you, don't enter into one.
fakedang 6y ago
Monaco is actually pretty biased against women in its divorce laws (I think alimony is capped at $100k per annum). There's a reason a lot of rich folks go to Monaco to surprise their spouses with a divorce. Now imagine if you were someone like MacKenzie Scott, who was actively involved with Amazon's founding. While her settlement with Jeff was quite generous on his part, in a Monaco divorce, she would have gotten maybe a mil or two tops. Monaco is in no way holistic when it comes to divorce, just a magnet for boomer millionaires and billionaires.
- vmception 6y ago
  > Monaco is actually pretty biased against women in its divorce laws Monegasque divorce laws are not gendered and there are plenty of wealthy women in Monaco. Alimony also has a fixed time period of 5 years. What part of that do you find controversial as opposed to practical? Its more like generous severance as opposed to a perhaps merely more familiar concept of alimony. This would give the liberty for MacKenzie, for example, to be sure that she got her own vesting agreements and her own shares in the organization they founded together. It moves the agency back to the individuals as opposed to assuming they are going to be starry eyed infants that are going to get screwed over. If people want to decouple marriage from any financial considerations, this is the way to do it, focus on the love. If they want to be business partners then write them into the separate business. If they want to have their supporting unpaid labor valued, then their moonlighting as a personal assistant is valued in the six figure ranges just like professionals.
- robocat 6y ago
  > Monaco is actually pretty biased against women in its divorce laws I presume the laws also equally help a rich woman, and are “biased” against a toyboy husband?
cataphract 6y ago
Whatever problems divorce law has, marriage is a voluntary contract. You could enter into an even more lopsided business partnership, with the difference that you could actually set out penalties for breach. In most jurisdictions, if your spouse abandons you little time after your marry, you're mostly going to be returned to the status quo ante, because assets they have before you marry or that are donated to them/inherited by them do not count as common property.

davemp 6y ago

This is a pretty interesting take on divorce. I'd be hesitant to view marriage as a financial partnership though. To me, marriage is more of a life partnership where both parties are "all in". A lot of the benefits of having a "life partner" stem from having someone who unconditionally watches your back and keeps your needs in mind. You can't put a price on that type of a partnership by definition (you introduce a monetary condition). I agree that someone with real wealth could hire folks to manage their assets, administrate, listen to their thoughts/concerns, provide intimacy, etc, at the cost of a fraction of their net worth well below 50%. Maybe people worried about protecting their wealth should just hire out those roles instead of getting married. I wonder why they don't. :)

vmception 6y ago
> Maybe people worried about protecting their wealth should just hire out those roles instead of getting married. I wonder why they don't. :) A lot of people do. What point were you trying to make by assuming its not happening a lot?
vmception 6y ago
> I'd be hesitant to view marriage as a financial partnership though. Acknowledging the problems with the contract requires looking at the realities of the contract. The reality of that contract is that it has financial components and financial consequences, which are assumed to scale linearly, when that’s not true. Someone “having your back” could just as arbitrarily be worth 10% of assets or a retainer or a monthly rate. The point being that starting at 50% and working down is just as arbitrary. I would say it would not actually scale infinitely, just as much as a key salaried employee does not have compensation that scales proportionately to the earnings of that corporation. I absolutely do not care about how these comparisons make you feel as that is completely a product of conditioning. This is still a flawed contract, lets acknowledge that it is a flawed contract whether your line in the sand is “cant put a price on” or something else.
- ddelt 6y ago
  Agreed - You stated more elegantly what I came here to reply with. I personally love the “idea” or concept of a marriage (the understanding and commitment of two humans to each other for pure love, devotion, or spiritual/religious reasons), but in practice, at least from what I’ve seen in the US, it’s very much about the legal aspects of the “marriage contract”, the financial and legal impacts, as well as to continue to promote the US agenda of the nuclear family unit.
- davemp 6y ago
  > I absolutely do not care about how these comparisons make you feel as that is completely a product of conditioning. This is still a flawed contract, lets acknowledge that it is a flawed contract whether your line in the sand is “cant put a price on” or something else. This goes in reverse as well. The only significant reason to get married is social conditioning/pressure. Like I implied above, you can just hire those roles out and not enter the contract. Marriage is absolutely about feelings or else no one would agree to it. Marriage is not an employment contract, the comparison is fallacious. The conditions for breaking the contract are much more severe because you're not "supposed to" switch partners like you switch jobs. If you don't believe in marriage more power to you, don't enter into one.

fakedang 6y ago

Monaco is actually pretty biased against women in its divorce laws (I think alimony is capped at $100k per annum). There's a reason a lot of rich folks go to Monaco to surprise their spouses with a divorce. Now imagine if you were someone like MacKenzie Scott, who was actively involved with Amazon's founding. While her settlement with Jeff was quite generous on his part, in a Monaco divorce, she would have gotten maybe a mil or two tops. Monaco is in no way holistic when it comes to divorce, just a magnet for boomer millionaires and billionaires.

vmception 6y ago
> Monaco is actually pretty biased against women in its divorce laws Monegasque divorce laws are not gendered and there are plenty of wealthy women in Monaco. Alimony also has a fixed time period of 5 years. What part of that do you find controversial as opposed to practical? Its more like generous severance as opposed to a perhaps merely more familiar concept of alimony. This would give the liberty for MacKenzie, for example, to be sure that she got her own vesting agreements and her own shares in the organization they founded together. It moves the agency back to the individuals as opposed to assuming they are going to be starry eyed infants that are going to get screwed over. If people want to decouple marriage from any financial considerations, this is the way to do it, focus on the love. If they want to be business partners then write them into the separate business. If they want to have their supporting unpaid labor valued, then their moonlighting as a personal assistant is valued in the six figure ranges just like professionals.
robocat 6y ago
> Monaco is actually pretty biased against women in its divorce laws I presume the laws also equally help a rich woman, and are “biased” against a toyboy husband?

cataphract 6y ago

Whatever problems divorce law has, marriage is a voluntary contract. You could enter into an even more lopsided business partnership, with the difference that you could actually set out penalties for breach. In most jurisdictions, if your spouse abandons you little time after your marry, you're mostly going to be returned to the status quo ante, because assets they have before you marry or that are donated to them/inherited by them do not count as common property.