Remix.run Logo
▲ datsci_est_2015 3 hours ago

Everyone has a prenuptial: the state provides a default. Either explicitly, e.g. in writing, or implicitly, e.g. via court proceedings.

▲Huarache1 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Closer then, to the ratio both had while single?

▲tomcatfish an hour ago | parent [-]

The idea behind an uneven split is that, in a lot of marriages, the partners do not act fully independently of each other. In marriages where one partner stops working to have or raise kids, they do so knowing the other partner will continue to work. Splitting according to the ratio before marriage would suit this (extremely common) type of relationship very poorly, because the partner who raised a child would have an interrupted career while the other wouldn't. It would be unfair and would discourage this (normal, often desirable) type of relationship

▲Huarache1 11 minutes ago | parent [-]

It still doesn't seem quite fair for the partner that simply married, didn't contribute financially, and has every incentive to simply leave and take 50% of the assets with them.

Hence why I said a Prenup ratio based upon what both groups had while single makes more sense.