50/50 split of assets with SAHM

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely.

Half the assets, but no alimony.

I’d rather pay alimony - 5k a month or something - than give her 5 million dollars!!!!

She did nothing to earn this money.

BS she took care of the kids and home so he could rise in his career. Without her he would have had to take the kids to school, activities, do all the shopping, cooking, organize house work, gardening, gifts, holidays, etc, etc. Could he have had such a career doing all that - no.

We don’t know this. You are assuming here.

He agreed she would not work. That’s all that mattered. You really think he raised the kids while making all that money with no help. Be real.

I am being real. We don’t know whether the wife has had the mental burden of the family, which is relatively less replaceable compared to gardening, cooking, shopping etc. A single parent with money can hire help to get all these things done. Again, my point is you are assuming that OP would not have made the same money without SAHM wife. That assumption simply has no basis.

I happen to know that paying nannies, housekeepers, tutors, etc. is anything but cheap, so that SAHM is likely worth much, much, much more than you, OP.

Kids should be raised by their parents, not nannies so he'd be a pretty bad father if he's never home and just outsourced to staff while getting rid of their SAHM and leaving her homeless, with no money and taking the kids from her.

Not one person said that she should be left homeless most people agree 30% is a good amount.

Plus, she’ll get half of the house.

I think kids should be raised by lots and lots of different people, no one person can give a child everything. Teachers, tutors, nannies, coaches, and uncles, grandparents, cousins

Kids need more than just one person in their life.

Lots and lots of people? No. It's well known that kids need to a secure attachment to a primary caregiver. Not a revolving door of villagers.

So you homeschool?

I think there’s a value in kids going to school and having a different teacher and learning how to deal with different temperaments, rules, etc.

We’re not call having teachers a revolving door, think having coaches in your life has been proven to be negative as a matter fact, I believe there’s lots of research that shows having a coach, mentor help

We all know that tutors get kids a lot further than their parents ever could.

I think you’re really hurting your children if you think you’re the only person they need in their life

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely.

Half the assets, but no alimony.

I’d rather pay alimony - 5k a month or something - than give her 5 million dollars!!!!

She did nothing to earn this money.

BS she took care of the kids and home so he could rise in his career. Without her he would have had to take the kids to school, activities, do all the shopping, cooking, organize house work, gardening, gifts, holidays, etc, etc. Could he have had such a career doing all that - no.

We don’t know this. You are assuming here.

He agreed she would not work. That’s all that mattered. You really think he raised the kids while making all that money with no help. Be real.

I am being real. We don’t know whether the wife has had the mental burden of the family, which is relatively less replaceable compared to gardening, cooking, shopping etc. A single parent with money can hire help to get all these things done. Again, my point is you are assuming that OP would not have made the same money without SAHM wife. That assumption simply has no basis.

I happen to know that paying nannies, housekeepers, tutors, etc. is anything but cheap, so that SAHM is likely worth much, much, much more than you, OP.

Kids should be raised by their parents, not nannies so he'd be a pretty bad father if he's never home and just outsourced to staff while getting rid of their SAHM and leaving her homeless, with no money and taking the kids from her.

Not one person said that she should be left homeless most people agree 30% is a good amount.

Plus, she’ll get half of the house.

I think kids should be raised by lots and lots of different people, no one person can give a child everything. Teachers, tutors, nannies, coaches, and uncles, grandparents, cousins

Kids need more than just one person in their life.

Lots and lots of people? No. It's well known that kids need to a secure attachment to a primary caregiver. Not a revolving door of villagers.

Doesn’t mean there is no primary caregiver

OPs kids were lucky to have that with their SAHM mom. Nowhere does OP say the kids are a mess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Should have had a prenup if you felt 50/50 was so inherently unfair.

Or you should’ve had a prenup if you felt like you deserved 50-50

Why? Doesn't seem like the wife will need it. Spouse has an uphill battle to prove she doesn't.

The laws equitable, not equal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely.

Half the assets, but no alimony.

I’d rather pay alimony - 5k a month or something - than give her 5 million dollars!!!!

She did nothing to earn this money.

BS she took care of the kids and home so he could rise in his career. Without her he would have had to take the kids to school, activities, do all the shopping, cooking, organize house work, gardening, gifts, holidays, etc, etc. Could he have had such a career doing all that - no.

We don’t know this. You are assuming here.

He agreed she would not work. That’s all that mattered. You really think he raised the kids while making all that money with no help. Be real.

I am being real. We don’t know whether the wife has had the mental burden of the family, which is relatively less replaceable compared to gardening, cooking, shopping etc. A single parent with money can hire help to get all these things done. Again, my point is you are assuming that OP would not have made the same money without SAHM wife. That assumption simply has no basis.

I happen to know that paying nannies, housekeepers, tutors, etc. is anything but cheap, so that SAHM is likely worth much, much, much more than you, OP.

Kids should be raised by their parents, not nannies so he'd be a pretty bad father if he's never home and just outsourced to staff while getting rid of their SAHM and leaving her homeless, with no money and taking the kids from her.

Not one person said that she should be left homeless most people agree 30% is a good amount.

Plus, she’ll get half of the house.

I think kids should be raised by lots and lots of different people, no one person can give a child everything. Teachers, tutors, nannies, coaches, and uncles, grandparents, cousins

Kids need more than just one person in their life.

Lots and lots of people? No. It's well known that kids need to a secure attachment to a primary caregiver. Not a revolving door of villagers.

Doesn’t mean there is no primary caregiver

OPs kids were lucky to have that with their SAHM mom. Nowhere does OP say the kids are a mess.

Nowhere did he say she was great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely.

Half the assets, but no alimony.

I’d rather pay alimony - 5k a month or something - than give her 5 million dollars!!!!

She did nothing to earn this money.

BS she took care of the kids and home so he could rise in his career. Without her he would have had to take the kids to school, activities, do all the shopping, cooking, organize house work, gardening, gifts, holidays, etc, etc. Could he have had such a career doing all that - no.

We don’t know this. You are assuming here.

He agreed she would not work. That’s all that mattered. You really think he raised the kids while making all that money with no help. Be real.

I am being real. We don’t know whether the wife has had the mental burden of the family, which is relatively less replaceable compared to gardening, cooking, shopping etc. A single parent with money can hire help to get all these things done. Again, my point is you are assuming that OP would not have made the same money without SAHM wife. That assumption simply has no basis.

I happen to know that paying nannies, housekeepers, tutors, etc. is anything but cheap, so that SAHM is likely worth much, much, much more than you, OP.

Kids should be raised by their parents, not nannies so he'd be a pretty bad father if he's never home and just outsourced to staff while getting rid of their SAHM and leaving her homeless, with no money and taking the kids from her.

Not one person said that she should be left homeless most people agree 30% is a good amount.

Plus, she’ll get half of the house.

I think kids should be raised by lots and lots of different people, no one person can give a child everything. Teachers, tutors, nannies, coaches, and uncles, grandparents, cousins

Kids need more than just one person in their life.

Lots and lots of people? No. It's well known that kids need to a secure attachment to a primary caregiver. Not a revolving door of villagers.

So you homeschool?

I think there’s a value in kids going to school and having a different teacher and learning how to deal with different temperaments, rules, etc.

We’re not call having teachers a revolving door, think having coaches in your life has been proven to be negative as a matter fact, I believe there’s lots of research that shows having a coach, mentor help

We all know that tutors get kids a lot further than their parents ever could.

I think you’re really hurting your children if you think you’re the only person they need in their life

Only the parents raise the kids. The soccer coach doesn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of crazy lazy women posting.

Of course a SAHM did not contribute to the success of OP and should not get 1/2, that’s insane.

It is true that raising kids does not entitle someone to 5 million dollars but you don’t think SAHMs who take care of their husbands’ children contribute to their success? At all? Do you think that if an especially lazy SAHM did nothing and the working spouse still had to do all the diapers, cooking, housekeeping, getting kids off to school, etc, in addition to working, his career wouldn’t be impacted at all?

Not that it matters because a marriage is a contract like any other and has financial implications, but its so weird to me that someone can say with their whole chest that a the work of a SAHM contributes nothing to the career of h

Yes I think his career would not be impacted.

SAHMs act like their agreement is a sacrifice when it was a gift.

Bfd, the SAHM coordinated the cleaners and tutors.

I suspect that by the time my oldest is 17, DH and I will have a joint net worth of 10M. When we were looking at our options when thinking about kids, we looked at two options: we both get low-key, lower-paying jobs, or I become a SAHM. Had we not gone the SAHM route our assets would be significantly lower. This is a pretty common turn of events. It doesn’t mean that men whose wives SAHM are incapable of earning what they do if they had to take care of all the things a SAHM takes care of (although for some that definitely is true). It does mean that in cases like ours, the couple’s net worth is as high as it is only because one party stayed at home, since that is the choice they made.

also it sounds like you are getting your information about SAHMs married to successful men from TV. Or maybe you just know a lot of losers. DH is a big law partner and the spouses of his colleagues who SAH are all extremely hardworking.

[Anonymous]

You guys keep suggesting the SAHP needs to justify the value of their work, but they don’t. It’s more like having 50% equity in a company that’s being liquidated. It doesn’t matter if you did anything to contribute to the increase in value.

It’s totally fine to reject that and structure something different but you have to do that BEFORE you get married.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely.

Half the assets, but no alimony.

I’d rather pay alimony - 5k a month or something - than give her 5 million dollars!!!!

She did nothing to earn this money.

BS she took care of the kids and home so he could rise in his career. Without her he would have had to take the kids to school, activities, do all the shopping, cooking, organize house work, gardening, gifts, holidays, etc, etc. Could he have had such a career doing all that - no.

We don’t know this. You are assuming here.

He agreed she would not work. That’s all that mattered. You really think he raised the kids while making all that money with no help. Be real.

I am being real. We don’t know whether the wife has had the mental burden of the family, which is relatively less replaceable compared to gardening, cooking, shopping etc. A single parent with money can hire help to get all these things done. Again, my point is you are assuming that OP would not have made the same money without SAHM wife. That assumption simply has no basis.

I happen to know that paying nannies, housekeepers, tutors, etc. is anything but cheap, so that SAHM is likely worth much, much, much more than you, OP.

Kids should be raised by their parents, not nannies so he'd be a pretty bad father if he's never home and just outsourced to staff while getting rid of their SAHM and leaving her homeless, with no money and taking the kids from her.

Not one person said that she should be left homeless most people agree 30% is a good amount.

Plus, she’ll get half of the house.

I think kids should be raised by lots and lots of different people, no one person can give a child everything. Teachers, tutors, nannies, coaches, and uncles, grandparents, cousins

Kids need more than just one person in their life.

Lots and lots of people? No. It's well known that kids need to a secure attachment to a primary caregiver. Not a revolving door of villagers.

So you homeschool?

I think there’s a value in kids going to school and having a different teacher and learning how to deal with different temperaments, rules, etc.

We’re not call having teachers a revolving door, think having coaches in your life has been proven to be negative as a matter fact, I believe there’s lots of research that shows having a coach, mentor help

We all know that tutors get kids a lot further than their parents ever could.

I think you’re really hurting your children if you think you’re the only person they need in their life

Only the parents raise the kids. The soccer coach doesn't.

Yes and they don’t need to be SAH to do so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You guys keep suggesting the SAHP needs to justify the value of their work, but they don’t. It’s more like having 50% equity in a company that’s being liquidated. It doesn’t matter if you did anything to contribute to the increase in value.

It’s totally fine to reject that and structure something different but you have to do that BEFORE you get married.

Lol you think the secretary gets the same as the CEO when liquidating a company.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely.

Half the assets, but no alimony.

I’d rather pay alimony - 5k a month or something - than give her 5 million dollars!!!!

She did nothing to earn this money.

BS she took care of the kids and home so he could rise in his career. Without her he would have had to take the kids to school, activities, do all the shopping, cooking, organize house work, gardening, gifts, holidays, etc, etc. Could he have had such a career doing all that - no.

We don’t know this. You are assuming here.

He agreed she would not work. That’s all that mattered. You really think he raised the kids while making all that money with no help. Be real.

I am being real. We don’t know whether the wife has had the mental burden of the family, which is relatively less replaceable compared to gardening, cooking, shopping etc. A single parent with money can hire help to get all these things done. Again, my point is you are assuming that OP would not have made the same money without SAHM wife. That assumption simply has no basis.

I happen to know that paying nannies, housekeepers, tutors, etc. is anything but cheap, so that SAHM is likely worth much, much, much more than you, OP.

Kids should be raised by their parents, not nannies so he'd be a pretty bad father if he's never home and just outsourced to staff while getting rid of their SAHM and leaving her homeless, with no money and taking the kids from her.

Not one person said that she should be left homeless most people agree 30% is a good amount.

Plus, she’ll get half of the house.

I think kids should be raised by lots and lots of different people, no one person can give a child everything. Teachers, tutors, nannies, coaches, and uncles, grandparents, cousins

Kids need more than just one person in their life.

Lots and lots of people? No. It's well known that kids need to a secure attachment to a primary caregiver. Not a revolving door of villagers.

So you homeschool?

I think there’s a value in kids going to school and having a different teacher and learning how to deal with different temperaments, rules, etc.

We’re not call having teachers a revolving door, think having coaches in your life has been proven to be negative as a matter fact, I believe there’s lots of research that shows having a coach, mentor help

We all know that tutors get kids a lot further than their parents ever could.

I think you’re really hurting your children if you think you’re the only person they need in their life

Only the parents raise the kids. The soccer coach doesn't.

Yes and they don’t need to be SAH to do so.

If you want the job done right, do it yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys keep suggesting the SAHP needs to justify the value of their work, but they don’t. It’s more like having 50% equity in a company that’s being liquidated. It doesn’t matter if you did anything to contribute to the increase in value.

It’s totally fine to reject that and structure something different but you have to do that BEFORE you get married.

Lol you think the secretary gets the same as the CEO when liquidating a company.

Yes dumbass, if they each own 50% of the stock, she does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You guys keep suggesting the SAHP needs to justify the value of their work, but they don’t. It’s more like having 50% equity in a company that’s being liquidated. It doesn’t matter if you did anything to contribute to the increase in value.

It’s totally fine to reject that and structure something different but you have to do that BEFORE you get married.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys keep suggesting the SAHP needs to justify the value of their work, but they don’t. It’s more like having 50% equity in a company that’s being liquidated. It doesn’t matter if you did anything to contribute to the increase in value.

It’s totally fine to reject that and structure something different but you have to do that BEFORE you get married.

Lol you think the secretary gets the same as the CEO when liquidating a company.

Oof. You think a SAHM is to her husband as a secretary is to a CEO? Is this the 1950s?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of crazy lazy women posting.

Of course a SAHM did not contribute to the success of OP and should not get 1/2, that’s insane.

It is true that raising kids does not entitle someone to 5 million dollars but you don’t think SAHMs who take care of their husbands’ children contribute to their success? At all? Do you think that if an especially lazy SAHM did nothing and the working spouse still had to do all the diapers, cooking, housekeeping, getting kids off to school, etc, in addition to working, his career wouldn’t be impacted at all?

Not that it matters because a marriage is a contract like any other and has financial implications, but its so weird to me that someone can say with their whole chest that a the work of a SAHM contributes nothing to the career of h

Yes I think his career would not be impacted.

SAHMs act like their agreement is a sacrifice when it was a gift.

Bfd, the SAHM coordinated the cleaners and tutors.

I suspect that by the time my oldest is 17, DH and I will have a joint net worth of 10M. When we were looking at our options when thinking about kids, we looked at two options: we both get low-key, lower-paying jobs, or I become a SAHM. Had we not gone the SAHM route our assets would be significantly lower. This is a pretty common turn of events. It doesn’t mean that men whose wives SAHM are incapable of earning what they do if they had to take care of all the things a SAHM takes care of (although for some that definitely is true). It does mean that in cases like ours, the couple’s net worth is as high as it is only because one party stayed at home, since that is the choice they made.

also it sounds like you are getting your information about SAHMs married to successful men from TV. Or maybe you just know a lot of losers. DH is a big law partner and the spouses of his colleagues who SAH are all extremely hardworking.

Cool story bro.

No I know lots of very successful people and the fact you think every SAHM has the same value is insane.

Also you were given a gift of not working. It’s not a sacrifice. Working hard is a sacrifice.

I’m sad your H missed precious hours with his children so you could have your way. I think those lost hours are worth money and you should pay him for time lost, health impact of long hours and you generally using him for money.

See there are many sides to a coin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys keep suggesting the SAHP needs to justify the value of their work, but they don’t. It’s more like having 50% equity in a company that’s being liquidated. It doesn’t matter if you did anything to contribute to the increase in value.

It’s totally fine to reject that and structure something different but you have to do that BEFORE you get married.

Lol you think the secretary gets the same as the CEO when liquidating a company.

Oof. You think a SAHM is to her husband as a secretary is to a CEO? Is this the 1950s?

They could be, they could be like an intern, they could be like the cleaning lady, they could be like the office manager, or the accountant …, but they are not the CEO.