|
|
|
|
||||||||||
| Xoutpost server transfer and maintenance is occurring.... |
| Xoutpost is currently undergoing a planned server migration.... stay tuned for new developments.... sincerely, the management |
 |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
03-19-2009, 11:51 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Wife divorcing ex-CEO: $53,000 per week is not enough
WTF! Quote:
|
| Sponsored Links | |
|
|
|
|
#3
03-19-2009, 12:41 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
As Zevon wrote, "Poor, poor pitiful me..."
Maybe she missed the news about the econ and everyone wisely cutting back a tad?  WTF, how does one spend that dough "weekly" on clothes, manicures, etc.? 
__________________
Ol'UncleMotor From the Home Base of Pro Bono Punditry and 50 Cent Opins... Our Mtn Scenes, Car Pics, and Road Trip Pics on Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/4527537...7627297418250/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/4527537...7627332480833/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/45275375@N00/ My X Page  Last edited by motordavid; 03-19-2009 at 02:25 PM.
|
|
#4
03-19-2009, 01:48 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Personally I have never understood the: "My ex should be financial responsible for maintaining my quality of life after we are no longer married" theory..
I mean, to me, it makes no sense. It's one thing if two people build things up from absolutely nothing, I also understand the need for adequate child support, etc. But the whole alimony, pay me cause we're divorced system is really baffling to me. And no one has ever been able to frame it in a way that it does make sense to me. It seems to me that if you get fired from a job and are used to making a certain amount, you get unemployment for a while to help you while you get back on your feet, assuming you were let go for "no fault", etc. So why isn't there just some sort of "unmarried" thing like there is "unemployment"? Why is the person who has more wealth fiscally responsible for someone they are no longer married too? Why as a society have we just accepted this behavior as okay? And PRENUPS do help, but they are not as concrete as many people would like to believe.. Could someone please help frame this for me? How did this happen? How does it continue to happen? Why can't it just be a set number to help someone get back on their feet, based on total wealth? For example, someone worth $1,000,000 giving $50,000 to ex just so they aren't in poverty or something. Why is there a reasonable expectation for people to "maintain their quality of life?" and at the expense of the person paying for it, who doesn't get to maintain their quality of life cause now they have someone who they are fiscally responsible too? Again, I just don't get it.
__________________
----------------------------------------------------------  "When two people agree on everything, one of them is not necessary" - Arliss
|
|
#6
03-19-2009, 06:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
the whole problem started when they were allowed to vote.
|
|
#7
03-19-2009, 06:29 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Yes, often the man has more money than the woman so I understand how someone could interpret what I said as being a gender issue, but let me be clear, it's not. I know some very wealthy women who have come under the same issue when they were divorced by a less stable man. My gripe is not about the sexes. My gripe is the free ride that seems to be afforded to either sex in the event of a divorce. Again, not talking about child support here either or leaving a partner with no ground to stand on. What I'm talking about is the continued financial support of someone else beyond marriage for large sums of money, both male and female.
__________________
---------------------------------------------------------- "When two people agree on everything, one of them is not necessary" - Arliss
|
|
#8
03-19-2009, 06:54 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
She sounds like a gold digger - I'm sure there are two sides to the story... but, it sounds like she married the guy for money and she divorced him for the same.
He got a trophy, fooled no one why she was there and now she wants $2.75M per year. The lawyer will get a chunk, he is a big name so she has to ask for a huge number so after huge taxes (not trying to make it political - wrong thread) she will probably only get a million per year. Boo fricking hoo. He sounds like he was played. Like a fool.
|
|
#9
03-19-2009, 07:32 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Of course she can't:
Marie Douglas-David Spends $8,000 a Week on Travel -- Daily Intel -- New York News Blog -- New York Magazine
__________________
An unwavering defender of those I see worth protecting. "promote the general welfare, not provide the general welfare" We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
|
|
#10
03-19-2009, 07:42 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
$8Gs a week for "travel"...
 I know I have now fallen fully, from the noveau-riche layer, here in RetiredBumDom: we don't spend $8Gs a month, total. BR,mD [email protected]
__________________
Ol'UncleMotor From the Home Base of Pro Bono Punditry and 50 Cent Opins... Our Mtn Scenes, Car Pics, and Road Trip Pics on Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/4527537...7627297418250/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/4527537...7627332480833/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/45275375@N00/ My X Page Last edited by motordavid; 03-19-2009 at 09:09 PM.
|
|
| Bookmarks |
|
|
|
|
B-Line... logic, whats that, obviously this women can't go on living without the money to cover the cost of all her homes in Switzerland that she's not living in 
Linear Mode
