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
-
-
Originally posted by d000hg View PostIndeed. But this is BP, I'm worried.Comment
-
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
-
Originally 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
- How should a creditors’ meeting ideally pan out for unpaid suppliers? Yesterday 21:16
- IR35: Substitution — updated for 2025/26 Yesterday 05:45
- Payment request to bust recruitment agency — free template Sep 16 21:04
- Why licensing umbrella companies must be key to 2027’s regulation Sep 16 13:55
- Top 5 Chapter 11 JSL myths contractors should know Sep 15 03:46
- Top 5 Chapter 11 JSL myths contractors should know Sep 14 15:46
- What the housing market needs at Autumn Budget 2025 Sep 10 20:58
- Qdos hit by cybersecurity ‘attack’ Sep 10 01:01
- Why party conference season 2025 is a self-employment policy litmus test Sep 9 09:53
- Labour decommissions Freelance Commissioner idea Sep 8 08:56
Comment