Community property is absurd

[John Scott]

It just occurred to me that the idea of community property is absurd. A woman marries a man, and two years later she divorces him and is somehow entitled to half (usually more) of everything he made.

Likewise, the idea of spousal maintenance in absurd. People are entitled to what they EARN, not what they have enjoyed at the expense of others.

[Atom]

Originally Posted by John Scott

It just occurred to me that the idea of community property is absurd. A woman marries a man, and two years later she divorces him and is somehow entitled to half (usually more) of everything he made.

Likewise, the idea of spousal maintenance in absurd. People are entitled to what they EARN, not what they have enjoyed at the expense of others.

This is why I don't understand why people still marry.

[Julie]

Yea, its silly. I know someone who was married, divorced, and got that spousal maintenance. Makes me sick. And now she's about to marry some other poor sucker.

[G10]

I think it is very wrong and totally disagree to it also.

If I get married, whatever is made during the marriage, that is what the partner should be entitled to, not what I had before.

If we have children then of course I would pay maintenance but I don't see why one should pay to keep the other person living the way they were when married.

[aryo]

thats why you sign prenupts before getting married.

[G10]

Prenuptials don't carry water in the UK.

[ewomack]

Sir Paul McCartney is currently learning a lesson in community property, I hear. Isn't his ex poised to get billions?

Regardless, I think the practice dates back to before the time women were major players in the workforce. Which was shocklingly recent. Back then, not too long ago, if a man left a woman, probably for a "younger model," she'd at least maintain her lifestyle. Arguably the practice has outserved its purpose, like sodomy laws. But the one cautionary situation is when a couple has one member at home intentionally (to raise kids, etc.). If that person stays out of the workforce for five years and the couple splits, it would really suck to be that person. And why penalize them since a mutual agreement was made? But if both people make good livings and they decide to split then "community property" becomes more of a useless idea.

[John Scott]

And why penalize them since a mutual agreement was made?

Not really penalizing. That's like saying, if a person worked at IBM for 5 years, and are accustomed to the lifestyle that goes with the paycheck, why penalize them for leaving the company? By that logic employees should get paid even after they leave companies.