AP: Tiger Woods' wife Elin Nordegren wants the kids and 'half his fortune'

[Ghost of]

Would you consider a world where men can steal the lives of women in their prime, betray them completely, and send them away with a pat on the ass for thier trouble? Would that be more fair? Marriage is no small commitment, if a person has no integrity they shouldn't enter into it.

but the problem is, even when the woman cheats, she still ends up with huge sums of money she didn't earn (and a few cases, do involve the reverse.)

BTW, who said anything about the false dichotomy you propose? I wasn't aware anyone said "Zero" vs. "100 million."

I'm sure she could be, like the REST OF THE POPULATION, Ok with a million, even 10 million. Especially since she wasn't with Tiger like how Juanita Jordan was with Michael. And beyond that, she could always parlay her relative fame and wealth into a new and fairly profitable arrangement.

[Prosperity]

But she'll try to take half of money unearned, right---because it's fair (meaning benefits a woman?)

You are forgetting the flip side. It's not so much that she 'deserves' or has 'earned' that much money, but also that he is paying for his mistakes... a punishment.

Would the punishment be fair? Losing half your property? It's not so bad in the big picture, he's already lost most of his good name.

[Ghost of]

Calling her names really makes people look like garbage. The only thing Tiger Woods had to do to keep every single penny of his money was to either stay true to his word (which in this day and age is asking too much apparently) or to be honest with himself and not get married. What he chose to do instead was to get married, father children, and then drag his entire family through a media **** storm. He chose to publicly humiliate all of them

Again, the problem is, Tiger Woods is just one part of a larger issue---even if he DIDN'T cheat, in fact, if Elin "fell out of love" and he was a normal man, he'd get ruined by divorce and be living in some singles condo somewhere. Again, people mistake the ability of the very rich to adjust to harmful social rules or adaptations as somehow representative of what we can all do.

Tiger is an idiot and what he did to his family was unfair on a variety of levels.

What I do know is that from a PERSONAL perspective, even being punitive, I would not ask my billionaire wife for HALF of her wealth and income. No matter what she had done, that was money she earned, basically, with no input or control or contribution from me.

There's something that only men talk about, and regardless of their failings, at least understand--honor. My honor wouldn't permit me to try to steal half of my wife's wealth. The child support and initial FAIR but still moderate settlement would be more than enough, even if she were the cause of the split.

[Ghost of]

Would the punishment be fair? Losing half your property? It's not so bad in the big picture, he's already lost most of his good name.

I look at wealth and income as being separable from the other considerations. I'm sure she and others look at this as punishment.

The issue is, I don't think punishment for a moral transgression means that a person surrenders half of what they have PLUS more in the future. Actually, if she DID get half, the notion of child support would be absurd. Half of hundreds of millions would do more than support those kids for a lifetime and a half in extreme comfort and luxury. Yet, do you think this would be the arrangement if she got 100 percent custody (which is often, just another way of maximizing income for the custodial parent?)

A man can be a dick, but if he's a good executive, accountant, lawyer, garbage collector--he should have relative security in his income, unless he's a criminal or people voluntarily boycott his services. We should not be in the business of sequestering a man's income or wealth for moral transgressions, unless those also are transgressions on a civil or criminal level.

[Prosperity]

Well, this is pretty close to a civil transgression. The legal dream teams will hash it out. But I have no sympathy for Tiger. He was (and is) an elite in our society, he had responsibilities greater than most people. He has money beyond security, comfort, luxury, profligacy... half of a **** ton is still a **** ton.

sucks for the kids though, now they are guaranteed to become crappy people

[mardi gras skin]

I can't believe so many of you have a problem with this. You guys that think she's taking his money should be very afraid of marriage. Avoid it until you can own the idea that marriage means a co-ownership of assets and earnings.

I make a good bit more than my wife, but all the money is ours. I don't give her an allowance or tell her what she can and can't do with my money. Because its not MY money. Its my contribution to the household. She puts in her contributions, monetary and otherwise, and I put in mine. The resulting assets belong to both of us.

So of course she would be entitled to half our combined resources if we divorced. Its hers as much as it is mine. And she should have some money coming to her in future years because she's made choices that stunt her earnings potential in order to spend more time with the kids.

Until you know you can trust a woman with your life, stay out of marriage.

[Ghost of]

Until you know you can trust a woman with your life, stay out of marriage.

There's a couple of dudes on this board who would have a word with you.

You THINK you can trust someone and that's great. But I also trust that I can walk down the street and not get murdered. If I were to be assaulted or murdered, I would hope that people wouldn't shrug and say, "well, what were you doing walking home at 2 am" and would see that JUSTICE was done.

No, there is no co-ownership and what about "palimony" where people aren't even married and the other person still gets support (beyond just basic "you gave up a job to be with me" support.)

[DeanCollins]

Incentive to try and work things out? Are you friggin kidding me? This is her doing her best to make him feel some pain. He's the scumbag. I don't think there was ever any previous notion that she was a money grubber. I can't even imagine what his actions did too her. This wasn't a typical situation where a guy gets caught cheating. His behavior is so over the top given the public nature and the details revealed it's hard to fathom. Making her out to be the bad guy is laughable.

Her and her sister were both in the business of cleaning houses for wealthy and famous people why, for the money and any opportunity that presents itself. Don't kid yourself. Ask yourself if Tiger didn't have fame and money, would that beautiful woman have anything to do with his ugly socially inept @$$? The first thing that she did, when she found out was demand a $million be deposited into her private account. I find odd for "grieving" person with a broken heart. The bottom line is that infidelity is not illegal. It's a free country and that doesn't entitle you to money that you didn't earn.

In California, a female spouse can have 1000 affairs and the resulting divorce still entitles her to assets and alimony. The amount and longetivity of the alimony payments is determined by a sliding scale, some many years per year of marriage regardless of how many other men she slept with. Goes to show you that the two subjects are unrelated.

[mardi gras skin]

Goes to show you that the two subjects are unrelated.

Absolutely. Wives don't get half of the assets as some sort of punitive award. They get half because it belongs to them as much as it does the husband. It has nothing to do with who did who wrong.

[DeanCollins]

Absolutely. Wives don't get half of the assets as some sort of punitive award. They get half because it belongs to them as much as it does the husband. It has nothing to do with who did who wrong.

not if you have a prenup, and earnings collected before the marriage are exempt. Hey just because you're ***** whipped don't expect the rest of us

to be.

[mardi gras skin]

Hey just because you're ***** whipped don't expect the rest of us to be.

A guy that needs to dominate his wife deserves a beat down.

[Ghost of]

A guy that needs to dominate his wife deserves a beat down.

Equality, who said anything about "dominate."

We ain't Sauron or Palpatine out this mother****er. Leave that for mythology and fables.

[Kosher Ham]

Haven't read beyond the first page (40 posts), but she does not deserve half. Why could he not take the kids and hire a nanny ?

Unless she is earning half, she doesn't deserve half.

I would claim as an argument every dollar she has spent over their entire relationship and compare it to what she has earned.

Screw that crap.

[Henry]

Equality, who said anything about "dominate."

We ain't Sauron or Palpatine out this mother****er. Leave that for mythology and fables.

It was an appropriate response to the guy calling him '***** whipped.'

We should probably all leave the posturing out of the discussion, don't you think?

[Bubble Screen]

Seriously Henry, I can't believe how many people are so stupid, as to have fallen into the marriage trap.

Be life partners. Be monogamous. Have children. Be loyal.

But get married? So you can lose everything financially?:hysterical:

Stupidity knows no bounds. It is hysterical.

You do know there are these things called "pre-nups", right?:doh:

Better yet. How about getting married and taking your vows seriously. If Tiger had done this, he wouldn't be in this situation.

[Sticksboi05]

As Cosmo Kramer said...

"marriage is a man-made prison"..

[Henry]

There's something that only men talk about, and regardless of their failings, at least understand--honor.

Are you seriously suggesting that only men understand the concept of honor?

You, sir, have been hanging out with the wrong women.

[ACW]

I look at wealth and income as being separable from the other considerations. I'm sure she and others look at this as punishment.

The issue is, I don't think punishment for a moral transgression means that a person surrenders half of what they have PLUS more in the future. Actually, if she DID get half, the notion of child support would be absurd. Half of hundreds of millions would do more than support those kids for a lifetime and a half in extreme comfort and luxury. Yet, do you think this would be the arrangement if she got 100 percent custody (which is often, just another way of maximizing income for the custodial parent?)

A man can be a dick, but if he's a good executive, accountant, lawyer, garbage collector--he should have relative security in his income, unless he's a criminal or people voluntarily boycott his services. We should not be in the business of sequestering a man's income or wealth for moral transgressions, unless those also are transgressions on a civil or criminal level.

Well-said.

[mardi gras skin]

Equality, who said anything about "dominate."

Equality. Husband and wife are equal partners in the marriage. An equal partner owns half the assets of the partnership. If the partnership is dissolved, the assets should be divided equally between equal partners.

The alternative is to see the bread winner as dominant. The boss. The spouse that earns less income is at the mercy of the provider. If the money belongs to the provider rather than the couple, money easily becomes a tool to leverage concessions from the spouse in a weaker financial position. He may give the appearance of equality when it suits him, but he knows its his money and can cut her off whenever it suits him. He's in control. She enjoys her life because of his benevolence. Because its HIS money.

The man that thinks this way is dominating his wife.

Money is the number one cause of divorce. You guys that can't wrap your minds around co-ownership of household resources are right to compare a wedding to a funeral. Marriage isn't for you.

[DeanCollins]

Equality. Husband and wife are equal partners in the marriage. An equal partner owns half the assets of the partnership. If the partnership is dissolved, the assets should be divided equally between equal partners.

The alternative is to see the bread winner as dominant. The boss. The spouse that earns less income is at the mercy of the provider. If the money belongs to the provider rather than the couple, money easily becomes a tool to leverage concessions from the spouse in a weaker financial position. He may give the appearance of equality when it suits him, but he knows its his money and can cut her off whenever it suits him. He's in control. She enjoys her life because of his benevolence. Because its HIS money.

The man that thinks this way is dominating his wife.

Money is the number one cause of divorce. You guys that can't wrap your minds around co-ownership of household resources are right to compare a wedding to a funeral. Marriage isn't for you.

No simple thinking like this leads to divorce. Your fairy tail idealism leaves no room for complex personal financial situations. Many people have multiple assets before marrying. Both parties may have homes, businesses, careers, children from previous marriages (certainly the case in my situation at least on my side) that need to be protected and passed down to certain individuals. That is why, generally, assets, business interests, earned or purchased, or created before the marriage aren't subject to division. Of course you ignored this part of my post earlier because it disturbed your fairy tale thinking. There is a big difference between one of the partners making thousands more than the other and one that makes hundreds of millions more. Let's face it, when relationships end, that relationship is not worth hundreds of millions of dollars. The whole idea of keeping this x-person in a lifestyle that you provided for them while you were together, that was a 1000 times greater than the one that they had when you met them is inequitable.

[Henry]

Eh, nevermind.

[Hubbs]

Equality. Husband and wife are equal partners in the marriage. An equal partner owns half the assets of the partnership. If the partnership is dissolved, the assets should be divided equally between equal partners.

The alternative is to see the bread winner as dominant. The boss. The spouse that earns less income is at the mercy of the provider. If the money belongs to the provider rather than the couple, money easily becomes a tool to leverage concessions from the spouse in a weaker financial position. He may give the appearance of equality when it suits him, but he knows its his money and can cut her off whenever it suits him. He's in control. She enjoys her life because of his benevolence. Because its HIS money.

The man that thinks this way is dominating his wife.

Money is the number one cause of divorce. You guys that can't wrap your minds around co-ownership of household resources are right to compare a wedding to a funeral. Marriage isn't for you.

Hmmm. As far as I can remember, not a single person has posted that the two alternatives here are "equality" or "the man is the bread winner." There have been a whole lot of posts about two other alternatives: "Elin gets $300 million for marrying Tiger in 2004," or "Elin gets a cool $10-20 million or so, plus supplemental income depending on the level of her custody of the kids, because she's put off her own career for several years and should be compensated for that plus the work that goes into being a mother, and this is more money than most of us could ever dream of, so those saying that she 'deserves' more don't seem to have any reason to complain other than the fact that this outcome actually seems to offend their marriage sensibilities, even though it has nothing to do with their marriages and they will probably never meet either of the people involved."

Tiger won his first Masters in 1997. He married Elin in 2004. If you want to tell me that she deserves half of his winnings from 1997, you're gonna have to come up with something better than the notion that I'm a closet sexist and I want a man to "dominate" his wife. If Brittany Murphy were in the news for divorce instead of death, I don't think her husband would be entitled to half of her earnings, either.

[FanboyOf91]

Every private detective in the state of Florida just got a woody.

[mardi gras skin]

Your fairy tail idealism leaves no room for complex personal financial situations.

Yeah, you're the one with the sophisticated mind.

the biatch was cleaning houses when he found her. that's what's profoundly wrong with the court system, with regards to property division. where's the incentive to try and work things out when you can just leave with half of what you never earned. She's just as big a scumbag imo.

If you're going to feign some advanced worldview, at least have the good sense to clean up your nuckle-dragging opening salvo in this thread.

Many people have multiple assets before marrying. Both parties may have homes, businesses, careers, children from previous marriages (certainly the case in my situation at least on my side) that need to be protected and passed down to certain individuals. That is why, generally, assets, business interests, earned or purchased, or created before the marriage aren't subject to division. Of course you ignored this part of my post earlier because it disturbed your fairy tale thinking.

I left it out because its irrelevant. If the courts deem that money earned and assets gained BEFORE the marriage belongs to one party when the marriage is dissolved, that's fine. Whatever. It has nothing to do with the issue I'm talking about. She is entitled to half their household income because she was a partner in the household and should be entitled to half the household income. Are there extenuating circumstances? Sure, that's why each case has to be dealt with individually. But the general consensus that this is HIS money and she's trying to take HIS money is absurd.

There is a big difference between one of the partners making thousands more than the other and one that makes hundreds of millions more. Let's face it, when relationships end, that relationship is not worth hundreds of millions of dollars. The whole idea of keeping this x-person in a lifestyle that you provided for them while you were together, that was a 1000 times greater than the one that they had when you met them is inequitable.

Well I can see why you think I live in a fairy tale world. From your perch, Tiger pulled this gold digger out of the slums. She should be grateful he let her put on the diamonds and parade around the castle for a few years. Now, the fun's over and its time for her to go back and wallow in the sty he pulled her from. She's not in his class, so she shouldn't expect to to be kept in fine things he loaned out to her for a few years.

The biatch.

[mardi gras skin]

Elin gets a cool $10-20 million or so...

Why 10 or 20 million? Have they only accumulated 20 or 40 million since they've been married? Of course not. There's some idea out there that she should just be happy that he's giving her some money. That's not true. I don't know how much money they've earned and how much wealth they've accumulated since they've been married, but that money is not his, its theirs. They were partners in the marriage that produced the wealth. If he didn't want to share the wealth, he shouldn't have entered into a partnership.