Why the fuck is this allowed?

Do you & your dad tag team her while she's crawling on all 4s?

Sweet Karma

Attached: c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800.png (800x99, 28K)

It makes perfect sense to legally combine a mans family in to one state entity. Marriage laws aren't the problem, allowing legal divorce on grounds of irreconcilable differences is.

The laws were instituted when divorce was incredibly rare and when it did happen it was because something seriously fucked up happened. Women usually didn't have any means to financially support themselves either.

There are no good reasons for getting a government recognized marriage in the modern age.

Ideally it isn't. The concept is fine. If you got married to a rich woman with a high income at 20 and decided not to go to university but instead be a stay at home husband, and after 15 years of raising kids she wants a divorce. You're now a 35 year old with no education past high school and no employment history, you're completely fucked. Getting alimony is completely reasonable and the only fair solution.

In practice you're right, it's used to bludgeon men for too high a percentage, the problem is with the cucked judiciary, not the laws themselves.

>the problem is with the cucked judiciary, not the laws themselves.
The problem is both.

No wonder Hulk was suicidal in 2008/09. I hope he's doing better.

If her job was, "Housewife," then technically she just did a career change. It would be expected her standard of living should also change.

>There are no good reasons for getting a government recognized marriage in the modern age.
This won't help. There is a thing called common law marriage where after a certain period of time you're more or less considered to be in a legal relationship.

Of course. Most lawyers are kikes.

Attached: Jew-Dicial-System.jpg (228x221, 21K)

This is why you only marry faithful asian or black women, not these white and latina roasties.

Attached: 3f884b5d158b873d82a9f3f57ce1cbfa.jpg (700x1093, 68K)

>It would be expected her standard of living should also change.
Nope. She was in a legal partnership. Like business partnerships she would be entitled to half the assets accumulated during their partnership. Her "job" within the partnership is irrelevant. It's like if you opened up a restaurant with a friend as partners and he became chief fry cook. His job description is different than his position as legal owner of the business.

If we lived in a world without jews, it would be called the justicial system.

Attached: CFI6V17W8AE_giw.png (800x1000, 174K)

>one-line writing prompt
>gratuitous swearing

he made 150 mill off gawker, he's fine and she's buttmad because she got fucked by paying them to run shit articles on him

You can argue in court against partners that do no work, user.

Depends if them doing work is part of the terms of the partnership. You're not going to have much luck against silent partners who explicitly only contribute capital and eschew any management in the business, they're still entitled to their portion of the assets and earnings of the partnership.

You're missing the point. If they dissolve those contracts then they're no longer entitled to the profits of the business decades later.

Many US states abolished common law marriage
This is the correct analysis
The general standard here is to measure their ability to support themselves.
If the wife has no education or work experience the state has decided it's better that the husband pay for her instead of her going on welfare. If both work it's more likely a 50/50 split. 60/40 is also very common depending on their salaries.
Seems like the hulk got fucked in this case

>He supports alimony in a "no fault divorce" standard.

Ayyyyyyyyyy
Really?
Nice digits

Marriage is slightly different in that in these circumstances one partner usually forgoes developing their earning potential either fully or partially to fulfil other responsibilities such as homemaking or raising children. These have long term consequences and it's not fair if one partner decides to do that then 20 years later has the rug pulled out from under them and is left stranded with zero prospects but spending the rest of their life as a Walmart greeter. The concept of alimony is fundamentally just because it's implied that the other person could only improve their earning potential by the support of their partner in other aspects.

even if asset split makes sense - when you keep a share of what you had earned being *together* (even if you didnt work a minute), but they also get what their partner had before them regardless of them - how is that justified? it only created gold-diggers

and the insane alimony doesn't make sense at all - you run away, you are no longer a partner, there are no children to support - thus you can't be entitled to any future income of your EX-partner

>Marriage is slightly different
Then stop using that broken analogy. It's bullshit and you know it. You're trying to imply she "earned" his money.
She can STILL WORK this day and age. If she chose not to it's her own fault and the loss of earning potential is her own problem.
Especially if she divorces. Which is exactly what divorce is about. Living separate lives.

Yeah I agree. The execution of it is the problem and there have been way too many cases where the courts award FAR too much, especially to women who have plenty of avenues still available to earn their own money. It's important to distinguish between the unjust cases in the OP from the concept itself which is fair in concept.

There are no just cases. You can't argue for one, either because in all cases she voluntarily undergoes that change in her life.

Grosstie defames her cash cows ability to make money. Wants more money. What in the absolute state of?

Hulk Hogan obviously cheated on her. He also allegedly beat her which I'm not convinced he did but not entirely convinced he didn't do either. So she got $$$

There are a lot of problems with family law but having to give alimony to your wife if you cheat on her isn't one of them. No-fault divorce is the real issue.

He could just give 30k to an hitman that would make her death look like an accident and be done with it. I would rather kill myself than give everything I own to anyone. Then again, I am already giving about 50% of my income to the state, and there are too many of them to kill

That is why I am never leaving my state and will only marry a woman who is a resident of my state. No need for a prenup because no alimony, all assets and wealth held before marriage belong to the person who brought it to the marriage. All assets gained during the marriage are split 50/50. Child support is state mandated based on income. The max a guy can be forced to pay is $32,000 per year per baby momma (number of kids not relevant, just # of women yoh knock up) this amount is for all who make over $250k per year. Unless there is undeniable documented proof of an abusive situation, joint custody will almost always be granted.

>no fault divorce
>punish him with alimony because cheating???
So much for that.

State enforced slavery
Basically our whole system runs on slavery. Fiat slavery. Pedo slavery. Debt slavery. Big Pharma slavery.

Attached: d90.png (644x800, 13K)

>because in all cases she voluntarily undergoes that change in her life.
With the implicit assumption that her partner will fulfil his part of the deal in perpetuity. Divorce doesn't change that arrangement. You can't decide halfway through a contract "Actually I don't want to support you anymore, fuck off and good luck getting a job with no experience and 20 years as a homemaker lol".

Sex slavery
Substance slavery
Etc.
Would love to hear more.

theguardian.com/law/2015/mar/11/woman-wins-right-seek-money-ex-husband-30-years-after-break-up-dale-vince

>Supreme court gives Kathleen Wyatt go-ahead to claim against Ecotricity boss Dale Vince, who became a multimillionaire after their divorce

>With the implicit assumption that her partner will fulfil his part of the deal in perpetuity.
That's the opposite of what divorce means. There's also an implicit understanding she won't divorce.

Divorce in case of cheating isn't no-fault divorce numbskull. If you're a woman who cheats you should get no alimony and you should live life poor with sand in your vagina. If you're a man who cheats you should have to give your wife alimony and live butthurt and poor.

I am a patient man, still in my 20s, saving my money away like a busy bee for the time when waifu-bots become viable investments.

Ya.... it's kinda true. Wish we could all be Amish sometimes..

She can ask for whatever her greedy jew lawyer can cook up, but it's not going to work. She is a sleazy cunt who fucked up and now she still wants to ride the gravy train. She is probably trying to say the sex tape trial caused her emotional pain so the only thing that can help is more money. From the Gawker lawesuit. Women are like blacks...always looking for a handout. Shameless.

23 years is a long time and he was unfaithful.

I agree that the divorce laws are shit but 23 years? Yeah, I don't care.
Find me some poor guy paying half his income to some slut he was married to for 5 years, the. I'll care.

Attached: IMG_6951.jpg (646x960, 276K)

Then why bring it up? Oh, right. The entire point is no-fault is also covered by alimony when it shouldn't be. That's the part you keep slipping up on.

Marriage is no longer stable yet you're arguing like alimony should be paid out like it still is.

That's absolutely insane, the original justification for alimony was that wives played a role in their husbands success and thus deserved part of the proceeds which had a distinct ring of truth to it.

This man seems like he was successful BECAUSE he broke up with her.

>Marriage is no longer stable yet you're arguing like alimony should be paid out like it still is.

I'm clearly not saying that, I'm literally advocating for a change in marriage laws, you're just fucking retarded or something and can't read.

>stairwell or brake line dynamics
? Pls explain

>I'm clearly not saying that, I'm literally advocating for a change in marriage laws, you're just fucking retarded or something and can't read.
No, you're not. At what part in this thread have you EVER argued that?

Sorry sister you don't get a lifetime claim once you hire a lawyer to sue for divorce legally voiding the marriage contract. The end, finito.

In my first post. No-fault divorce should not result in alimony.

can always do this I know there's been plenty of larp threads about anons making their own societies, but there's no reason why a small handful couldn't do it on a small scale.

Because the west is a matriarchy and BS like this proves it.

That's not the end. You are incorrect. That's ok tho. This isn't any fight I have a dog in. But a man cheating after 23 years. I don't care and neither do most people.

Again, find me some poor guy who I should feel bad for. There are a lot of them.

>There's also an implicit understanding she won't divorce.
Yeah but the Hulkster cheated so he gave her cause to divorce. He let his dick override his brain, he has no-one to blame but himself for that. If she initiated the divorce with no reason then she wouldn't have been awarded anywhere near as much.

Except, re-reading your post, you didn't say that. You're imaging an entire conversation in your head.
Your entire effort has been centered around arguing why Hulk should be fucked.

Hulk should be fucked he's a cheating bastard. Now shut the fuck up already your posts have no value.

It's not worth 60% of his assets. And future earnings. Regardless if he cheated or not.
This is just bullshit punitive tradcuck bullshit.

i like to think i would have spent all of the rest of my money to hire assassins to gruesomely torture and execute my wife, the judge, all members of the jury, all of their entire families, get it all on video, release it to the world with an explanation, and then commit suicide.
people rarely have the courage to do what they dream, though. and our enemies count on that

Ah, yes, the tradcuck reveals himself. Keep support marriage and getting raped in divorce court lmao.

No body no crime.

What the fuck are you saying, dummy dummy leaf? If women cheats, she must pay alimony to her husband. If he cheats, he must pay. Your country is too much into feminism so you can’t understand basic principles of fairness?

Yeah I'm divorced she got the house (which burnt down) and custody but I was doing something which is starting to become very lucrative indeed and I would like to see her hire a lawyer and try to get some.

Reason no. 1848592 not to get married

Funny how his argument suddenly swapped from, "It's about earnings," to punishing cheating. He knows he fucked up his argument a while ago.

I dont know what you're quoting and I dont have skin in this fight, but I do know the legal standard isn't who is at fault or who cheated or abused who. The standard is - the state prefers a husband give the wife money so that the taxpayer doesn't. That's it

Wow, I was going to say that she only got the RIGHT to sue and that it would never succeed but...

Apparently it did and she got 300,000 pounds as a payout
telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/10/millionaire-tycoons-ex-wife-awarded-six-figure-payout-even-thoug/

Holy shit that's fucking insane and a good example of the deadshit judges who have no fucking idea what they're doing. What an awful precedent.

Never , NEVER get married .

Attached: 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.jpg (700x700, 68K)

>24k a year
>a lot of money
Fucking boomers

The taxpayer shouldn't pay, either. This is 2018. She should have kept working if she wanted an employment history.

And I am sure that you personally deserve not to pay alimony. But this guy cheated on his wife after being married for a couple of decades. Plus he is a douche bag anyway. This has nothing to do with your divorce.

You guys don't know how to control your women .Why are there so many leech-women in America and Russia? Most cases of gold diggers i heard are either American women or Russian ones.

The hulk had options he chose not to pursue

>Plus he is a douche bag anyway.
Gawker, go and stay go.

I'm not low t, I'm simply saying it how it is. White and latina women are trash with no manners nor loyalty.

Attached: 1530341473601m.jpg (1024x576, 103K)

I see Hulk every once in a while in town getting groceries. Seemed pretty depressed, guess I know why.

Women were a mistake

Because we live in a matriarchy.

Not an argument

For $1000 biweekly it would be fair .

Attached: D439F901-BA83-4F13-9718-47D21BC0EDD1.jpg (800x800, 123K)

It's about both. It's not about "punishing" cheating, but if he cheats then she has valid cause to end the partnership and she is entitled to her share of assets acquired over the course as well as future earnings based on her contribution. It's that simple. If she divorced with no cause then she wouldn't have been awarded as much because it would be viewed as opportunism instead of breach of contract.

>He cheated on his wife

Discrete infidelity is redpilled for men and men only.

>douchebag

STFU whore. This is a Sharia board now.

Neither was yours. "Being a douche," means fuck all.

It's 24K a year IN ADDITION to what they should be earning on their own.

Fuck you.

>t. 23 year old

Wrong. If she wants money she should earn it, plain and simple. Being married is not a job. She can work and should have.

Infidelity is a perfect a reasonable argument

Bitch threw herself down the stairs I swear

For divorce? Yes.
Not for more than 50% of his earnings and future earnings.

Hulk should have hired better attorneys

That's where the 23 years come in. It's not like they were married for 5 years, or even 15 years.

He fucked up his argument when he got out of vagina under a flag with leaf on it.

Doesn't matter how long they were married. If she wanted money she should work and earn it.