3 ms·
That's assuming both sides brought an equal amount of equity to the union in the first place. However, if the man brings more to the union (which I suppose is
by atomicUpdate 11y ago
That's assuming both sides brought an equal amount of equity to the union in the first place. However, if the man brings more to the union (which I suppose is typically the case, based on this fear existing in the first place), he stands to lose more when it dissolves.
The obvious solution is to separate the assets proportionally based on how much was put into it in the first place, though I'm sure that's much easier said than done (and a bit of an oversimplification of most situations).
- andreyf 11y agoseparate the assets proportionally based on how much was put into it in the first place The convincing argument I've heard against that is that it gives someone leverage to keep their partner in a relationship against their will, once they are used to a certain standard of living they can't have on their own. If someone with significant assets marries someone living paycheck to paycheck, for example. If you don't want to merge your equity with someone, either don't marry them or sign a prenup. I don't think people with significant net worth go into marriages without understanding what they're doing. Also, the original logic that any of this will have anything to do with a man's willingness to work seems really quite over-stretched.