jbar
Platinum
Reged: 12/16/06
Posts: 1015
|
|
Can anyone tell me why there should be "community" or "marital" property or the laws that provide for them in the twenty-first century? It seems to me that today if anyone believes that their STBX owes them anything, they should simply have to prove it, in the same way anyone would if they were not married to the other party involved or even living with them. A recent survey shows that more people today are having permanent relationships without being married and without placing themselves under all the laws that control it, than are married. Why not treat everyone equally under the law then, at least in a financial sense? If anyone then wants any other arrangements they can make their own valid, honest contracts to provide for them. This is obviously better than having some confusing, subjective and not fully knowable law, which is constantly changing and evolving--all the while subject to many interpretations and variations in judicial discretion-- posing as a contract, and then unexpectedly being applied to the parties years later in a divorce, based upon the assumption that they knowingly entered into such a "contract" when they got married.
I realize that many generations ago there were some valid arguments for these laws, with it being unimaginable that any married couple would not be operating a business together, usually a farm or a ranch. Today however these arguments are all obsolete, with far less than 1% of married persons working together in a family business. Both parties in a marriage are now truly equal and the woman is every bit as free as the man to work and create her own wealth. Modern conveniences make it highly likely that even a stay-at-home-mom will receive full compensation for her work in the form of the care and enjoyment of life she receives-not to mention avoidance of the stress of having to worry about being fired.
The above explains why this area of law is no longer necessary and serves no valid purpose (except perhaps the enrichment of goldiggers, some attorneys and a few demogogic politicians). The real problem though with these laws is the often outrageous injustice that results to the parties involved. One of many bad things (but certainly not the worst) they do today is simply to provide for the retroactive conversion of gifts--of assets or of helpful or generous behavior--to another person, into a contrived, imaginary contribution to a specious "financial partnership". This "partnership" in reality is always established by these laws not at the time of the marriage but--arguments to the contrary aside--at some future time. In the situation I am discussing this "partnership" is implemented when a married person no longer likes the other party (their spouse), permitting them to obtain the full or partial recovery of these gifts, and perhaps even much more, by dissolution of this alleged partnership through divorce. When I was growing up this kind of behavior would have been called (with appropriate apologies) "Indian giving".
Is the forcible "taking back" of a gift already given really any different than theft? If it is done by the operation of law, what does that make it?
I would like to know if anyone agrees with me and also to hear any rational arguments in favor of this arbitrary, presumptuous and expensive (to defend against) law. Remember you can also send me a PM.
jbar
|
Jada
Platinum
Reged: 06/02/07
Posts: 3341
|
|
Because assets bought during the marriage are community property and needs to be split in a divorce.
|
Cryssyer
New
Reged: 02/28/08
Posts: 10
|
|
So when you say a woman is free to work and create her own wealth, are you discounting the fact that most couples have joint accounts, joint property, and joint ventures? I would think that counts as "community property" that needs to be divided. As a woman who was free to work and create my own wealth, I have to say that with all of the assests we have accumulated in our marriage, I was THANKFUL we never did combine our main bank accounts. It was merely out of laziness and lack of motivation to do so, but it did make it much easier when the divorce came. Even still, there were accounts that we held jointly that needed to be sorted out and two properties that had to be divided. This is still community property as far as the court was concerned.
Also, it is an age old debate - who works harder, the mom who stays home or the mom that works outside the home - and I won't get into that now, but it seems like a rather uninformed comment on your part to say that a stay-at-home mom likely gets compensated by "care and life-enjoyment" that she receives from modern conveniences. Would those conveniences include a washing machine or a dishwasher? Does this mean that because these appliances exist that having to do laundry or clean dishes is obsolete or that these chores are done by themselves? You seem well educated, so that comment stands out as particularly ignorant (no insult intended, by the way).
Women who choose to stay home to care for the children and the household are not compensated with money (usually) and make many sacrifices to be able to care for their families in this way. And it appears they CAN be fired - when the man decides he wants a divorce. Just sayin'.
|
OpenMyEyes
New
Reged: 04/02/08
Posts: 16
|
|
jbar, you and I and anyone else who believes these laws are unfair and unjust need to write to our legislators and urge for reform. please do it! for me, it's not just the property codes that are messed it, it's the family support and everything else! i'm in california so it's all 50/50. for those in equitable distribution states, consider yourself lucky.
see the link below for where to write if you are in California. anywhere else, just do a google.
http://www.legislature.ca.gov/port-zipsearch.html
|
jbar
Platinum
Reged: 12/16/06
Posts: 1015
|
|
===========================================================
jbar, you and I and anyone else who believes these laws are unfair and unjust need to write to our legislators and urge for reform. please do it!
===========================================================
That's a fine idea, but these people get letters like this all of the time, and basically ignore them. The problem, you see, is that these legislators are also attornies, many of them divorce lawyers, and benefit from the very laws which I am trying to reform.
They can be forced to straighten out and do the right thing, but it will take more than a few letters; it will take a massive, coordinated campaign against these laws, such that they will clearly smell the loss of votes if they fail to take action to change them.
As far as "equitable distribution" is concerned, I don't think that there is really a dime's worth of difference between this and community property. The only solution is to get rid of all property division which has anything, whatsoever, to do with the fact that a person is "married", with the exception of that pertaining to intestate inheritance. I have been trying to find an alternative to such abolition for years and, believe me, it is impossible. There is no way of compromising with evil.
Edited by jbar (05/05/08 05:19 AM)
|
chatter box
Platinum
Reged: 11/09/07
Posts: 1243
|
|
I think there is an argument to be made here. At least to some degree, however the reason for community property didn't start because of divorce but a way to collect unpaid tax's. Look at it from the IRS, state or county tax view. You have unpaid tax's from one person the husband yet the wife or common law spouse doesn't work. Tax's are piling up and they only thing they own is a house. They can't take just his half of the house or put a lien on just his half. They can't lien just half of there joint account. If they both work and have seperate accounts but he gets behind so to avoid paying back tax's he stops working. Why should he work when his spouse make plenty after all. The only recorse is for the tax's to come fromt the working spouse yet they can't take it unless it is community property. I say lets do away with tax's and community property but then how do we pay pay the government.
|
jbar
Platinum
Reged: 12/16/06
Posts: 1015
|
|
===========================================================
I think there is an argument to be made here. At least to some degree, however the reason for community property didn't start because of divorce but a way to collect unpaid tax's. Look at it from the IRS, state or county tax view. You have unpaid tax's from one person the husband yet the wife or common law spouse doesn't work. Tax's are piling up and they only thing they own is a house. They can't take just his half of the house or put a lien on just his half. They can't lien just half of there joint account. If they both work and have seperate accounts but he gets behind so to avoid paying back tax's he stops working. Why should he work when his spouse make plenty after all. The only recorse is for the tax's to come fromt the working spouse yet they can't take it unless it is community property. I say lets do away with tax's and community property but then how do we pay pay the government.
===========================================================
Am I missing something here? You're right, if a person is living off of their spouse he is not making any taxable income. But then, the total amount being made is less, and they have less money to spend. Whether there is community property or not is irrelevent, and its existence may even make the total tax less. It is anyone's right not to work if they can find someone foolish enough to take care of them, whether the income is community property or not.
If you are talking about IRS taxes, then whether they can put a lien on the house is determined by how it is titled, since the IRS doesn't care or want to know about state marital property laws. A joint account is the same way, whether the partries are married or not, since each party has the right to withdraw the FULL amount in such an account. Other joint ownership interests, when there are third parties involved, such as annuities, trusts and limited partnerships depend entirely on how they are set up, and usually are immune to liens, judgements or assessments on personal taxes.
The point is not so much that they want to have community property so as to collect more taxes, but rather so that they will have to PAY OUT less tax revenue as welfare. If they "give" a woman one-half of a man's house, even if it is titled in the man's name, as "community property" in a divorce, then at least the state will not have to house her. If they further award her alimony, then they will not have to feed her. So, you see, any theory that the woman somehow must have done something for her husband, during the marriage--even though it can't be proven--to justify this continued housing and support from her ex-husband, is nothing but a RED HEERING presented to deceive all observers into being blind to the real motive for this theory: the desire to avoid, at any and all costs in terms of honesty, justice or fairness, the woman becoming dependent upon the state for support. "What about the man in all this?", you ask? Never mind him! If he made it once he can make it again, and men are naturally tuffer than women. It might do him some good to sleep on a hard cot at the shelter for a while, and to eat donated canned food!
The correct replacement for ALL other taxes is excise (sales) tax, which is authorized by the constution.
Edited by jbar (05/07/08 06:54 AM)
|
chatter box
Platinum
Reged: 11/09/07
Posts: 1243
|
|
Definition: This applies only to state tax returns. In community property states, married persons are considered to own their property, assets, and income jointly. If married people decide to file separate tax returns, they must follow their state rules for community income. Generally, both spouses must combine their total income, and divide that income in half. Each spouse then reports half of the joint income on his or her tax return. The community property states are:
Arizona
California
Idaho
Louisiana
Nevada
New Mexico
Texas
Washington
Wisconson
I copied the above from about.com
Community property also make is easy to handle property in the event of a illness or death of one of the partners by avoiding probate.
You also have to put a value on the the stay at home partner. It is very common for the stay at home partner that watchs pre-school kids to save more money then what they could make working wile the kid or kids are in daycare.
|
chatter box
Platinum
Reged: 11/09/07
Posts: 1243
|
|
[quote]===========================================================
If you are talking about IRS taxes, then whether they can put a lien on the house is determined by how it is titled, since the IRS doesn't care or want to know about state marital property laws.
----------------------------------------------------------
you should read the IRS web page that I have linked.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p555.pdf
|
jbar
Platinum
Reged: 12/16/06
Posts: 1015
|
|
===========================================================
... it is an age old debate - who works harder, the mom who stays home or the mom that works outside the home - and I won't get into that now, but it seems like a rather uninformed comment on your part to say that a stay-at-home mom likely gets compensated by "care and life-enjoyment" that she receives from modern conveniences. Would those conveniences include a washing machine or a dishwasher?
===========================================================
Absolutely!
===========================================================
Does this mean that because these appliances exist that having to do laundry or clean dishes is obsolete or that these chores are done by themselves?
==========================================================
They are practically done by themselves, in comparison to the grueling labor required for these tasks, at the time when "community property" laws were first created.
===========================================================
Women who choose to stay home to care for the children and the household are not compensated with money (usually) and make many sacrifices to be able to care for their families in this way.
===========================================================
The key, operable term here, is CHOOSE. If they do, in fact, make this choice freely, and they are not compensated with money, then how can they later demand to be compensated with money? If this care is a voluntary gift, at the time, why then should they later be entitled to demand payment for the gift? Could it be that this supposed "gift" is really part of a sophisticated scam to deceive the primary wage earner into believing that his pay is actually all his, when in fact a large portion is readily available to his wife --and her lawyers--at any future time in which she may decide that she is ready to be payed for these "gifts"?
===========================================================
...and it appears they CAN be fired - when the man decides he wants a divorce
===========================================================
Maybe the woman CAN be fired, but how many men are willing to fire an employe who gets THIS kind of severance pay? The man, however, can not only be fired but has to keep on top of the game at work, staying ahead of office politics, personnel reviews, training upgrades, sales quotas, etc., etc. In most states, and with most companies, there is no such thing as severance pay. Some women have even been awarded much more than one-half of their husband's assets, in "equitable division" states, based upon nothing but the theory that they somehow contibuted to the creation of these assets by going to "office parties" with him!
Give me a break!
|
chatter box
Platinum
Reged: 11/09/07
Posts: 1243
|
|
Think of it more as stock options for investing sweet equaty rather then severance pay. Sweat equaty is often required in order for a young couple to start a family. And it really isn't a matter of who works harder at all. That's like saying who does the company need more the blue coller worker or the white collar worker? They are both needed and companies would not servive without either one but in this case servival is all about the kids.
Edited by chatter box (05/09/08 07:07 AM)
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
