Is it fair that your wife/husband gets half your stuff in divorce?

It simply isn't the case that each party automatically gets exactly half in divorce settlements, just a myth that is particularly popular on TSR.

I think most of us agree that a settlement should fairly take into account financial contributions, but also things like time spent on childcare, sacrifices one has made for the other, assets purchased together etc

I'm taking family law and I hate this myth. The 50/50 division of assets is just a starting point for deciding who gets what and why. It doesn't apply to every marriage, there are frequent deviations from the principle of equality for a huge range of reasons.

I don't think it's a question that can just be thrown into the ether and decided on a black and white fundamental point- it could be fair for one and not fair for another. As for not 'earning' money, marriage is a legal relationship which involves huge contributions both financial and non financial and both are equally important to that relationship. It can't function without contributions by both parties whatever those may be.

TLDR; hugely complex issue + myth = sad law student

Prenup.

No, it just encourages (mainly women) to target guys with wealth stay with them a few months then divorce and take them for half, hardly fair. In fact it is really a form of legalised theft in some cases. Think someone should have to me with someone substantially long say 20 years or more for them to claim half to dissuade people doing this. I think it should be based on a ratio of what wealth you had when you married and wealth earnt while together, accounting for bring up children and any inheritance of course, or everyone should have to have a pre-nupt with this perhaps the standard basis for it. Its really underhand when people are taken to the cleaners by the other half the way things currently stand. People that are gold-diggers that are not morally entitled to money in a relationship are pretty low I think.

The idea is that all assets are marital assets and get split equally. If anything, the one who made more financial contribution could get less as they are capable of earning again whereas the other may be less able.

I'm pretty sure that that's a load of balls, if a woman tried that she wouldn't be given 50%...

Whose idea? This isn't enforced by the courts. Most divorces are settled out of courts. It's a myth.

I am totally selfish tbh, no way would any woman get more than the absolute minimal of what i earn. Over my dead body, it's my money!

I don't know why prenup is viewed as an ideal solution either. How can you make a legal agreement without all of the information (eg: what happened in your marriage and the various sacrifices and contributions made)?

The solution to divorce is compulsory mediation, and staying the hell clear of lawyers.

I meant the courts idea. Are you honestly saying that in a marriage where one person contributes financially and the other doesn't, he is likely to walk out with more than 50%?

Because some people take the view that their money is theirs, to do as they like and don't want to be forced to hand something over in court to someone they no longer want to spend their life with.

If you want your money to remain completely under your control, don't get married and don't open a joint account. Simples.

But then don't expect someone to make life/career sacrifices for you, don't expect them to share their assets, time and money with you, don't expect them to volunteer to look after the kids at the expense of their promotion.

If you want to be an individual, be an individual.

Otherwise, if you actually want to get married, then accept that it is a major financial and social commitment. Yes that might cost you - not just financially, but emotionally, socially, romantically etc. You can't just go back to being completely separate again easily, whether you wrote a magic contract decades ago when everything was very different, or not. Hence divorce and all its complexities.

Yes, if that's fair. There's certainly no "rule" to say that he can't.

My uncle divorced his wife, they had actually been separated for some time and she was living with her parents not working. Prior to that they had the same job/income.

I know that he wasn't bitter or dissatisfied with the financial outcome - she certainly didn't cripple him by taking half of his savings or anything, she got less in the settlement and he stayed in his/their house and paid her off. And he got custody of their daughter. And this was through courts because things were not very amicable (fortunately they are now).

If you look at most of the "infamous" celebrity divorce cases, even then you'll see the lower earning partner generally doesn't take anywhere near 50% of the other's "estate".

It's just *******s.