Originally posted by d000hg
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Just to cheer up BP
Collapse
X
-
I think you are confusing me with someone else. I have always fought for the rights of children. -
New Wife, New life ........Originally posted by d000hg View PostIndeed. But this is BP, I'm worried.Comment
-
I agree that this is the only fair way for longer marriages. (Long enough the children have all grown up). It should be an exactly even split.Originally posted by NotAllThere View PostFor longer marriages the contribution is not measured in simple financial terms, but also takes into account mutual support, running the household, child care etc. It would be, in my view, morally wrong to not take these things into account. Part of marriage is giving up your singleness and all that entails for and to the other person - that must be quantified. You can't go back to the state you were in before the marriage, because you did get married - nobody forced you.
For shorter marriages it is different. Treating them the same is where problems come in. Eg the wife gets half of a millionaire's fortune, that he accumulated before they ever met. Or half the house he owned outright before they ever met. There is first the problem of the unfairness, then the unforeseen consequence which is that divorce starts to become an attractive option for some people.
Also I believe the govt. should make divorce more difficult, not more attractive for one party. It should offer help to couples and do everything it can to keep 'em together wherever remotely possible. Where divorce does happen, it should enforce fathers' visitation rights (which are routinely flouted) with hard punishments. Children need fathers. And mothers.Comment
-
Comment
-
Comment
-
FTFYOriginally posted by xoggoth View PostUtterly appalling. After divorce it is reasonable that partners should get their share of what they contributed to the couple's wealth or otherwise be put back into the situation they would probably have been in had they not married. Anything more is wrong in principal.
The law is an idiot. These women have gone off and should get down to the gym and get a job.
Let us not forget EU open doors immigration benefits IT contractors more than anyoneComment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Umbrella companies, beware JSL tunnel vision now that the Employment Rights Act is law Today 06:11
- 26 predictions for UK IT contracting in 2026 Yesterday 07:17
- How salary sacrifice pension changes will hit contractors Dec 24 07:48
- All the big IR35/employment status cases of 2025: ranked Dec 23 08:55
- Why IT contractors are (understandably) fed up with recruitment agencies Dec 22 13:57
- Contractors, don’t fall foul of HMRC’s expenses rules this Christmas party season Dec 19 09:55
- A delay to the employment status consultation isn’t why an IR35 fix looks further out of reach Dec 18 08:22
- How asking a tech jobs agency basic questions got one IT contractor withdrawn Dec 17 07:21
- Are Home Office immigration policies sacrificing IT contractors for ‘cheap labour’? Dec 16 07:48
- Will 2026 see the return of the ‘Outside IR35’ contractor? Dec 15 07:51

Comment