Vanessa Bryant files for divorce - Page 3
Old 12-17-2011, 08:30 PM   #41 (permalink)
censored

Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 5,772
Representing:
Default

in the real working class world, i agree with you 'trane.

in the celebrity world, i don't.

i'm might be naive in all this, but i certainly don't believe that vanessa is sitting at home cooking, cleaning and tending to the kids all day. shouldn't the nanny, chef and maid figure into how the responsibilities of the union and assets are divided.
dfunkie1 is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2011, 08:32 PM   #42 (permalink)
BOOBS

never too old.


 
INSIDER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: richmond hill
Posts: 11,512
Representing:
Default

in these cases, i'd like to see child support actually go to the children....well, the majority at least.
i think that out of the money that goes towards child support, 50% (or more) should go to an account that is set up only for the child(ren), not to the wife. i'm not saying this is the case, but seeing the spouse (usually the wife) drive around in hundred thousand dollar vehicles is a bit crazy considering thats where the child support usually ends up going. how exactly is that going towards the child(ren).
INSIDER is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2011, 09:54 PM   #43 (permalink)
I believe in Masai!

giant steps

 
'trane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 16,657
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackson Filth View Post
in the real working class world, i agree with you 'trane.

in the celebrity world, i don't.

i'm might be naive in all this, but i certainly don't believe that vanessa is sitting at home cooking, cleaning and tending to the kids all day. shouldn't the nanny, chef and maid figure into how the responsibilities of the union and assets are divided.
nanny, cook and chef are all hired and paid. surely you see a spouse as something different than that.

as to vanessa - 2 things to say:

1. i hope you think that laws should be applicable to all people equally. that is to say that there is no separate law for the rich.

2. whether or not her role was cooking and cleaning, they clearly had an agreement that she live the kind of life she was living. that alone is enough. remember that, in terms of what is being presented to us in the press, he is not walking out on her for failing to live up to her end of the bargain. he seems to have accepted that role as part of their relationship, and he made a vow to support her doing that. (whether or not he said those words at their wedding i don't know, but this is certainly how the law recognizes marriage partnerships).

and let's be clear and not intertwine spousal support and child support.
'trane is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2011, 09:56 PM   #44 (permalink)
I believe in Masai!

giant steps

 
'trane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 16,657
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by INSIDER View Post
in these cases, i'd like to see child support actually go to the children....well, the majority at least.
i think that out of the money that goes towards child support, 50% (or more) should go to an account that is set up only for the child(ren), not to the wife. i'm not saying this is the case, but seeing the spouse (usually the wife) drive around in hundred thousand dollar vehicles is a bit crazy considering thats where the child support usually ends up going. how exactly is that going towards the child(ren).
by 'these cases', do you mean rich people? for those who are not rich, that 50% in an account may not leave them enough to cover the necessities.

also, could you let me know if there is some data or something to support the idea that expensive luxuries is usually where child support ends up going? i'm not saying this never happens, but usually?
'trane is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2011, 11:38 PM   #45 (permalink)
censored

Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 5,772
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 'trane View Post
nanny, cook and chef are all hired and paid. surely you see a spouse as something different than that.

as to vanessa - 2 things to say:

1. i hope you think that laws should be applicable to all people equally. that is to say that there is no separate law for the rich.

2. whether or not her role was cooking and cleaning, they clearly had an agreement that she live the kind of life she was living. that alone is enough. remember that, in terms of what is being presented to us in the press, he is not walking out on her for failing to live up to her end of the bargain. he seems to have accepted that role as part of their relationship, and he made a vow to support her doing that. (whether or not he said those words at their wedding i don't know, but this is certainly how the law recognizes marriage partnerships).

and let's be clear and not intertwine spousal support and child support.
i probably should have used quotes on the comment i was responding to. i'm not confusing spousal support with child support. i was directly commenting on vanessa not being able to pursue her dreams/career due to taking the responsibilities of raising the children.

also, i don't think there should be different laws that apply to the rich and the poor simply because i never knew that there was a law that states that they're entitled to half of their belongings. personally, i think all cases should be resolved by their lawyers, which i believe is usually the case.
dfunkie1 is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2011, 05:29 AM   #46 (permalink)
chucking wood like a woodchuck would if a woodchuck could chuck wood

Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 728
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 'trane View Post
nanny, cook and chef are all hired and paid. surely you see a spouse as something different than that.

as to vanessa - 2 things to say:

1. i hope you think that laws should be applicable to all people equally. that is to say that there is no separate law for the rich.

2. whether or not her role was cooking and cleaning, they clearly had an agreement that she live the kind of life she was living. that alone is enough. remember that, in terms of what is being presented to us in the press, he is not walking out on her for failing to live up to her end of the bargain. he seems to have accepted that role as part of their relationship, and he made a vow to support her doing that. (whether or not he said those words at their wedding i don't know, but this is certainly how the law recognizes marriage partnerships).

and let's be clear and not intertwine spousal support and child support.
if there was a separate provision based on wealth, it would still be equally applicable to all people, just like progressive tax. rich are just people who got rich

anyway, i don't know that there would have to be separate provisions based on $ level. I mean, just for example, you could simply take a medium between (a) what a person would get under general assumption of equal shares in joint spousal property and (b) income share. So if it's a family where one spouse consistently earns 10k and the other 2k, it ends up more of a .67-.33 division rather than .50-.50.
Of course, legislature that applies only to the rich would likely be easier to promote. It doesn't affect so many people. And the ones that it affects - single moms and dads with mega-million yachts - don't draw too much sympathy.

**** PS **** as a side note, judging by this thread, there may be confusion with definitions. "Spousal support" is defined very differently here (in Lithuania and generally in continental Europe, since Lithuanian legislature is mostly based on Dutch and French).
Over here, spousal support has nothing to do with joint property. That's separate.

Here, spousal support is an amount that you can only get if your income/wealth is inadequate. It generally allows the spouse to live at minimum costs, which is defined by minimum salary that's established by the government. But that's the general rule. If your spouse is wealthy, it goes up. If you gave up on college / career, it goes up. If you were married for many years, it goes up. Children, it goes up. It just never goes crazy.

But again, it's got nothing to do with joint property other than if there's lots of joint property, then there's no spousal support.
In terms of property division, Kobe in particular would still get properly screwed. Because he was married for most of his career. We have a number of exceptions to what spousal property counts as joint but I doubt they apply to most of Kobe's money.

Last edited by ValanciunasFanboy; 12-18-2011 at 09:19 AM.
ValanciunasFanboy is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2011, 10:09 AM   #47 (permalink)
I believe in Masai!

giant steps

 
'trane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 16,657
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ValanciunasFanboy View Post
if there was a separate provision based on wealth, it would still be equally applicable to all people, just like progressive tax. rich are just people who got rich

anyway, i don't know that there would have to be separate provisions based on $ level. I mean, just for example, you could simply take a medium between (a) what a person would get under general assumption of equal shares in joint spousal property and (b) income share. So if it's a family where one spouse consistently earns 10k and the other 2k, it ends up more of a .67-.33 division rather than .50-.50.
i disagree that a progressive tax applies equally to all people. i also disagree that this is anything like taxation. this is the division of property based on the dissolution of a contract.

your idea is still based on the assumption that wealth in families is generated by individuals, for individuals. this just isn't the case. the way the courts see it, money is made for the benefit of the whole family, as part of the partnership. the individual essentially ceases to exist as a separate unit of wealth once the partnership is enacted.

from there, there are 3 things to consider:

1. division of assets
2. child support
3. spousal support


1 is based on an even(-ish) division of the family's wealth. this is fair to me because of the partnership and the home(s) that they occupied together. the idea that any of the wealth he made when in a partnership with her should belong only to him is based on a highly individualized conception of marriage that is simply not supported in law. there are times when portions of the wealth are hived off this way, but it is usually based on what they brought into the marriage in the first place. this is something they knew (or could have known if they bothered to look into it) before they were married, and should not come as a surprise. anyone who decides to get married has to know that this is part of the deal.

2 is complex, but i think we probably agree mostly about that obligation vis-a-vis supporting your children.

3 is likely the area that we have the most disagreement. the idea that kobe would continue to keep paying her after the marriage is dissolved bothers some people. i see why this could be seen this way, but it is not as simple as it is being made out to be. it depends a lot on how long the marriage was, for instance. a quickie marriage doesn't guarantee long-term spousal support. a 10-year marriage would mean something more, and a 30 year marriage even more.

the thing for me is that kobe clearly agreed that this is the life she would lead (he is not leaving her for failure to provide or for breaking her end of the bargain). if it was the basis of their marriage (and their pledge to support each other through good times and bad as long as they both shall live, or some such variation) that she not be working, then he owes it to her to continue that standard of living for some time so that she can transition to a new life. just how long that would take and what portion he owes her is a complex negotiation in the courts that weighs all sorts of factors. it would be impossible for us to know enough to sort out the amounts.
'trane is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2011, 12:13 PM   #48 (permalink)
chucking wood like a woodchuck would if a woodchuck could chuck wood

Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 728
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 'trane View Post
i disagree that a progressive tax applies equally to all people.
Certain laws directly affect only some people. But it doesn't mean they are discriminatory.
You can tax progressively, keep thieves in jail, send kids to school, forbid blind people to drive cars, and it wouldn't be discrimination towards the people to whom it does not apply.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 'trane View Post

your idea is still based on the assumption that wealth in families is generated by individuals, for individuals.
maybe it partly is the case?
if you look at it carefully, i was not suggesting to make it completely individualistic, merely tone it down.
i think nowadays families are way less holistic, and the wealth is partly generated by individuals, for individuals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 'trane View Post
this just isn't the case. the way the courts see it
Why is it just not the case? Because of the way courts see it?
Again, i understand how the courts see it.
(well more or less - as spousal support here wouldn't work the way you are describing)

Look, I don't think anyone here is saying that the law won't apply in Kobe's case.
So if you merely want to explain what's the law in Kobe's case... you are absolutely right.

But everyone here (inc me) is arguing that the law is flawed.
Personally, I simply don't think it fits modern times.
I think if you took a romantic couple, put the romance aside for a second and showed them that more likely than not they'll be divorced in 10 years, and they'll split everything 50-50 no matter which one of them spent their days playing world of warcraft, I think most of them would want a prenup.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 'trane View Post
the way the courts see it, money is made for the benefit of the whole family, as part of the partnership. the individual essentially ceases to exist as a separate unit of wealth once the partnership is enacted.
"unless there's a prenup"

Look, that doctrine is not absolute in the States (as well as here in Lithuania). In fact, the attitude behind those rules is very pragmatic. Families are different. Individual roles within a family are different. Therefore, you can change the rules to fit your family with a prenup.
The 50-50 rule is merely something that's considered to fit a "normal" family and therefore applicable when there's no special agreement.

There are countries where the "family as one" doctrine is very strong. the old USSR didn't allow prenups. The same is still true in most Asian countries. And probably many more - I'd assume any strongly religious country looks at it in a similar way, although I don't know it for a fact.

BUT if your system is more on the pragmatic side.... WHY is 50-50 the general rule at all? Is that what's considered "normal" and "fair" by most of population? If it is, fine. I doubt it is, though.
ValanciunasFanboy is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2011, 12:15 PM   #49 (permalink)
is not changing this sig until we win a playoff series

everyones a critic
 
th3answ3r's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,312
Representing:
Default

Kobe Bryant -- Not As Rich as You Think | TMZ.com
th3answ3r is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2011, 12:23 PM   #50 (permalink)
I believe in Masai!

giant steps

 
'trane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 16,657
Representing:
Default

well, of course 'unless there is a prenup', which is exactly what kobe should have done if he is interested in protecting 'his' share of the income.

what is fair is obviously debatable, but religion has no play in it for me. it rests in protecting a standard of living that both parties agreed to when they entered and maintained the partnership. in this case, the reason they are splitting has nothing to do with the wage-earning roles. vanessa bryant, or any spouse that has been deceived, had an expectation that the relationship and the roles were to continue because the partnership was for life. that needs to be compensated in some way. portioning her share based on the income that she did not earn while under a partnership that both understood seems grossly unfair to me.
'trane is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2011, 12:47 PM   #51 (permalink)
chucking wood like a woodchuck would if a woodchuck could chuck wood

Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 728
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 'trane View Post
well, of course 'unless there is a prenup', which is exactly what kobe should have done if he is interested in protecting 'his' share of the income.

what is fair is obviously debatable, but religion has no play in it for me. it rests in protecting a standard of living that both parties agreed to when they entered and maintained the partnership. in this case, the reason they are splitting has nothing to do with the wage-earning roles. vanessa bryant, or any spouse that has been deceived, had an expectation that the relationship and the roles were to continue because the partnership was for life. that needs to be compensated in some way. portioning her share based on the income that she did not earnwhile under a partnership that both understood seems grossly unfair to me.
well again, it ends with what's normal and what's "understood" nowadays. people still say 'till death do us part' but is that even the normal expectation anymore.
Kobe's situation is clear. But when it comes to general rule I'm not sure it represents the arrangement that is the usual family anymore.
It's cool that there's at least an option for prenup. It's not enough though. Idk how popular prenups are in the States but over here prenups are still not popular despites being available for over 20 years. Mainly because legal side of marriage is not very romantic. The same reason why people here prefer to have a wedding before priest even if they aren't religious, as opposed to a simple civil marriage before a municipal lawyer.
ValanciunasFanboy is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2011, 01:28 PM   #52 (permalink)
is praying Ross makes us forget Drummond so people stop whining

Senior Member
 
jeffb's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: YO MAMMA
Posts: 74,758
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by th3answ3r View Post
Why would anyone think he's worth 400Mil +?

Has he even made that in his career? I would have guessed about 200-250Mil or so.
jeffb is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2011, 01:33 PM   #53 (permalink)
I believe in Masai!

giant steps

 
'trane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 16,657
Representing:
Default

for most people "'till death do us part" is certainly the expectation. maybe not the reality of the outcome, but almost certainly the hope and the expectation.

prenups are very common for people with assets and wages to protect, but most people are not in a situation where that matters. many people put prenups aside for love, romance and family, which is exactly why the fair split is important when the love, romance and family are falling apart.
'trane is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2011, 01:48 PM   #54 (permalink)
chucking wood like a woodchuck would if a woodchuck could chuck wood

Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 728
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffb View Post
Why would anyone think he's worth 400Mil +?

Has he even made that in his career? I would have guessed about 200-250Mil or so.
he made 196 mil in salaries prior to this season. Also, he's been making ~20-30 mil per from endorsements for years, over 30 lately.
so, idk. there are taxes, agents. there are also investment returns / bank interest, unless you keep it under the pillow.

150 mil sounds kind of low-ish though.
ValanciunasFanboy is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2011, 02:13 PM   #55 (permalink)
streets ahead.

Senior Member
 
SomeDPlease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,780
Representing:
Default

The irony here is that if Vanessa were to ever get married after the divorce, she'll be sure to get a pre-nup.
SomeDPlease is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2011, 08:04 PM   #56 (permalink)
"Fake All-Star"

Senior Member
 
TORaptor4Ever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 16,427
Representing:
Default

I'll never understand why these young pro athletes want to get married so young when they're playing and subject to temptation 24/7.
TORaptor4Ever is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2011, 10:02 PM   #57 (permalink)
gone

Senior Member
 
Beesh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 986
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TORaptor4Ever View Post
I'll never understand why these young pro athletes want to get married so young when they're playing and subject to temptation 24/7.
haha good point man. The opposite is Wilt I guess.
Beesh is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2011, 11:51 AM   #58 (permalink)
"Fake All-Star"

Senior Member
 
TORaptor4Ever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 16,427
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beesh View Post
haha good point man. The opposite is Wilt I guess.
Ha. Or Derek Jeter. That guy has the right idea.

If you doubt your ability to say "no" (or simply want to man-whore) then live the swinging single life and don't pretend that you're a "family man" until you're ready to be one.
TORaptor4Ever is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2011, 01:08 AM   #59 (permalink)
is all bout dat life

Can't knock the Hustle
 
Nites's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 14,385
Representing:
Default

Looks like Kobe isn't going to have a happy Christmas like Ray Allen.

Nites is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2011, 01:10 AM   #60 (permalink)
is praying Ross makes us forget Drummond so people stop whining

Senior Member
 
jeffb's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: YO MAMMA
Posts: 74,758
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 007nites View Post
Looks like Kobe isn't going to have a happy Christmas like Ray Allen.

He'll be fine...

jeffb is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright RaptorsForum.com 2005-2011

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24