• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

$1 billion divorce settlement 'disappointing'

SmokeAndMirrors said:
Your summary said she was paid. If she is no longer working there, why should she continue to be paid for work she isn't doing? If she *is* still working there, what's wrong with her normal salary? Why does she need a billion dollars on top of it?

There cannot possibly be "more to the story" if she does not own part of the company. Whether or not it is legal or common, it is wrong for a grown adult to demand to be supported by someone they've divorced. If you don't want to be a partner, why do you deserve their money? You don't. It's quite simple. Unless there are some kind of legitimate damages -- and having to be a grown-up and figure out your own finances does not count -- you don't deserve the monetary support of someone you are not in a partnership with.

There is quite simply nothing else to take into account ethically, regardless of whatever nonsense the law might allow.

Someone who complains about receiving a billion dollars they did nothing to earn is simply greedy.
Click to expand...

if they were married she did in fact own part of the company, at least if they lived in a community property state......

I'm not exactly sympathetic to a big oil tycoon, you poke her you pay her, that's how it works from the trailer park on up when marriages go south.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Assuming what? She is not the owner of the company. She deserves nothing, unless she is employed there, in which case she deserves exactly her normal salary and nothing more.

Like I said, whatever silliness is permitted by law is a totally different matter, and isn't relevant to a debate about what she should get from an ethical perspective, which has been my focus.
Click to expand...

Even that did not happen with this settlement she has. I think your contempt for her is clouding your judgement on what really could happen in a divorce.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
if they were married she did in fact own part of the company, at least if they lived in a community property state......
Click to expand...

If that is true, even of a company he'd owned 20 years prior to marrying her, then that is an almost incomprehensible injustice. And in terms of the realms of sanity, my answer remains the same: she should get absolutely nothing.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Even that did not happen with this settlement she has. I think your contempt for her is clouding your judgement on what really could happen in a divorce.
Click to expand...

For her? I don't know her. I've never even heard of her. Or him, for that matter.

Her actions are plainly contemptible.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
For her? I don't know her. I've never even heard of her. Or him, for that matter.

Her actions are plainly contemptible.
Click to expand...

They may be, just trying to understand why her less than 10% asking is greed and his holdings are not.
 
The sexist attitudes in this thread are sad. It doesn't matter what she wants to spend the money on. She could want to start a foundation to fund glass eyes for blind kitties. It does not matter. If she is entitled to more then she should get what she is entitled to or file the appeal.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
If that is true, even of a company he'd owned 20 years prior to marrying her, then that is an almost incomprehensible injustice. And in terms of the realms of sanity, my answer remains the same: she should get absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...

Isn't the entire point of marriage that both parties become one? if he wanted a sperm receptacle he could've had one, he took on a wife, that brings with it obligations, including supporting her for a period after divorce, if he has 20 bucks to his name she gets 10, if 20 billion....

it's not like she was the higher earning party, then my opinion would be slightly different, but still. they were married since 1988, wether you agree or not, she is ethically entitled to part of the fruits of the business who's owner she stood by for over two decades. this wasn't a kim Kardashian marriage....
 
OrphanSlug said:
They may be, just trying to understand why her less than 10% asking is greed and his holdings are not.
Click to expand...

There is nothing to understand, on an ethical level. She does not own the company. She wishes to dissolve her partnership with her husband, and simultaneously demand an almost unusable amount of money for absolutely nothing. That is all there is to it.

He is entitled to all of what he has legally made from a company that he owns. He may or may not be greedy -- I don't know. But to refuse to be pilfered, in and of itself, is not greed. It's the principle of not letting oneself be used.

And please note that he has not tried to hold his money from her anyway. He has offered her dramatically more than she could ever possibly justify deserving, or needing.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
There is nothing to understand, on an ethical level. She does not own the company. She wishes to dissolve her partnership with her husband, and simultaneously demand an almost unusable amount of money for absolutely nothing. That is all there is to it.

He is entitled to all of what he has legally made from a company that he owns. He may or may not be greedy -- I don't know. But to refuse to be pilfered, in and of itself, is not greed. It's the principle of not letting oneself be used.

And please note that he has not tried to hold his money from her anyway. He has offered her dramatically more than she could ever possibly justify deserving, or needing.
Click to expand...

Again, your "ethics" have nothing to do with law and divorce.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Isn't the entire point of marriage that both parties become one? if he wanted a sperm receptacle he could've had one, he took on a wife, that brings with it obligations, including supporting her for a period after divorce, if he has 20 bucks to his name she gets 10, if 20 billion....

it's not like she was the higher earning party, then my opinion would be slightly different, but still. they were married since 1988, wether you agree or not, she is ethically entitled to part of the fruits of the business who's owner she stood by for over two decades. this wasn't a kim Kardashian marriage....
Click to expand...

Ok. By that logic, would you be remiss in being upset if your partner took your car, which you purchased before marriage, and which was in your name and used by you, and sold it without asking?

No one ever becomes totally "one" with anyone, and relationships should be about respect of consent and mutual consideration.

And at any rate, she wishes to dissolve that relationship, so what does it matter?

Well, I am not a sexist, so my opinion would be exactly the same if she were the higher earning party and he wanted a billion dollars for nothing.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Um, I never said they did. Will you address the point, or not, please?
Click to expand...

Why? Your point is based on your ethics and have little to do with how this played out. Again, if it were otherwise she would not have seen the $1 billion she already has.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Ok. By that logic, would you be remiss in being upset if your partner took your car, which you purchased before marriage, and which was in your name and used by you, and sold it without asking?

No one ever becomes totally "one" with anyone, and relationships should be about respect of consent and mutual consideration.

And at any rate, she wishes to dissolve that relationship, so what does it matter?

Well, I am not a sexist, so my opinion would be exactly the same if she were the higher earning party and he wanted a billion dollars for nothing.
Click to expand...

if it were registered to both of us she couldn't sell it without both signatures on the title. the last thing I worry about though is a jilted lover wanting my hoopdy :mrgreen:


any claims she has to property though are valid, and it's up to either a division of property agreement or if parties are unreasonable, a judge. I don't personally believe a marriage should be a casual agreement. you can't jusdt marry someone then after twenty years separate with what you came in with. it's not right and the law recognizes that. personally I think she doesn't deserve half, but certainly more then 1 billion out of the worth of that company.
 
imagep said:
Her point of view is likely that if he demands one, he doesn't lover her.
Click to expand...

No doubt.

But it doesn't matter what she says; if she won't sign it, you know she doesn't truly love you...so move on.
 
One persons trash is another persons treasure,one persons billion is another persons ticket out of the ghetto. Some ppl are just never happy and always in the state of taking. Halley Berry's ex is demanding more money too. Get a job!
 
I think our legal system is better capable of issuing a fair judgement based on all the evidence presented than we are since all the evidence we've been presented doesn't amount to very much. Practically speaking Ms. Hamm will certainly have an enormous amount of money with the settlement as it stands. Unless there was a court error with regard to the law, the only result of an appeal will likely be a few million more spent on lawyers but no change in the decision.
 
There is a certain amount of perverse satisfaction in seeing greedy billionaires tear themselves apart over money. The guy is worth 17 billion, if you had a 170,000 dollars in assets, do you think you would get away with just giving your ex-wife 17,000 as part of the divorce?

As a side note the guy has 17 billion, yet lives in Oklahoma City. That is like the premise for a twilight zone episode "You get to be one of the richest men on earth, but you must spend eternity in Oklahoma City."
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
If that is true, even of a company he'd owned 20 years prior to marrying her, then that is an almost incomprehensible injustice. And in terms of the realms of sanity, my answer remains the same: she should get absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...

If you marry somebody that had bad credit before you got married, it becomes your responsibility to pay that as well.

Why should this be any different?
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
There is nothing to understand, on an ethical level. She does not own the company. She wishes to dissolve her partnership with her husband, and simultaneously demand an almost unusable amount of money for absolutely nothing. That is all there is to it.

He is entitled to all of what he has legally made from a company that he owns. He may or may not be greedy -- I don't know. But to refuse to be pilfered, in and of itself, is not greed. It's the principle of not letting oneself be used.

And please note that he has not tried to hold his money from her anyway. He has offered her dramatically more than she could ever possibly justify deserving, or needing.
Click to expand...

Texas is a community property state.
 
Declan said:
The sexist attitudes in this thread are sad. It doesn't matter what she wants to spend the money on. She could want to start a foundation to fund glass eyes for blind kitties. It does not matter. If she is entitled to more then she should get what she is entitled to or file the appeal.
Click to expand...

... There is something sexist about people wanting to keep the assets/income they've earned once they divorce? There's something sexist about supporting those people? If a woman had been the billionaire, nobody would blink twice before saying the guy is a gold digger. However, just because the actions of this woman are being criticized, it's sexist? I don't buy that.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
There is a certain amount of perverse satisfaction in seeing greedy billionaires tear themselves apart over money. The guy is worth 17 billion, if you had a 170,000 dollars in assets, do you think you would get away with just giving your ex-wife 17,000 as part of the divorce?

As a side note the guy has 17 billion, yet lives in Oklahoma City. That is like the premise for a twilight zone episode "You get to be one of the richest men on earth, but you must spend eternity in Oklahoma City."
Click to expand...

Not all sums of money are the same. I'm not really sure why I have to explain this.... Hell, if she got 50,000,000, she'd still be richer than 96% of Americans. So... why is it wrong to criticize her morality and obvious greed?
 
Hatuey said:
... There is something sexist about people wanting to keep the assets/income they've earned once they divorce? There's something sexist about supporting those people? If a woman had been the billionaire, nobody would blink twice before saying the guy is a gold digger. However, just because the actions of this woman are being criticized, it's sexist? I don't buy that.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter what you buy. The woman worked at the company for most of their marriage. The husband's lawyer had the court treat the company as a passive income source to keep her from getting her fair share. This was not passive income. They both worked at the company during the marriage. I think she had worked there for something along the lines of 20 years and he worked there throughout the marriage. The legal principles are the same whether it is an oil company or a woman doing the books while her husband is out mowing grass, putting on roofs, etc. The court screwed up and the case should be reversed and remanded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom