Reply to Belle Burden’s “Strangers”

Forum Index » Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)

Reply to "Belle Burden’s “Strangers”"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]It’s obvious the New Yorker article was planted by her ex husband and his PR team. Masterful rebuttal of her smear campaign against him. [/quote]
It’s not gaining much traction though. [/quote]

Because even if you try to unfairly take half of your spouse's family money, and she remains rich, it's still a scummy thing to do [b]when the cheating spouse has kept all his income during the life of a 20 year marriage. [/b]

And he's always going to be the ultimate pig for abandoning his 3 kids without a backwards glance.[/quote]

You realize she kept all her income, right?  [/quote]

You don't seem to have read her book, if you don't realize she basically had no income for 20 years because she stayed home raising their 3 kids (despite having equally strong academic credentials as her spouse.)   Do you not realize that this was unrenumerated labor she provided to their children?[/quote]

IT’s not just unrenumerated labor she provided to her children, it’s unrenumerated labor she provided to him which he was then able to monetize for his career success - keeping all the money he earned (part of which was due to her unrenumerated labor) for himself.[/quote]

She kept all her money to herself!  Per the prenup. [/quote]

She kept her money which was inheritance or money she made prior to the marriage; he did nothing to contribute to enabling her to make that money, so why should he get any of it?. They both contributed equally to household expenses even though his income from work appeared to be far higher than hers from inheritance.

Although on paper she was worth tens of millions of dollars, something like 5/6 of her potential inheritance was obligated first to her step-mother’s care, so there was no way to know whether it would be 2 years or 2 decades.

She spent multiple millions of dollars which she got from 2 trusts she controlled and “emptied”, she took that money and used it to purchase 2 homes they lived in - a primary manhattan residence and a vacation home. Those homes had mortgages on them for less than half their purchase. So, at best, the husband was contributing 50% of 50% of the value of the homes and yet, because she had put his name equally on the title without any paperwork agreement about how to fairly value their relative contribution to the asset, he stood to get a far bigger equity share from the sale of his 50% of the home than the share he put in.

There was also a lost opportunity cost to her putting her money into the homes - her money was not then at work in more liquid and higher return investments, while her disproportionate contribution to housing freed him up to put more of his money into investments. 
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics