Tuesday, March 18, 2008

All you need is love.... at £700 ($1400) an hour

The £25 million award amounts to more than £700 for every hour that she was married to Sir Paul

I refer, of course, to the divorce settlement that Heather Mills has received from Paul McCartney. Ms Mills, apparently, was seeking 5 times this amount. In other words she thought she deserved £3,500 ($7,000) for every hour she was Mrs McCartney. I could, at this point, criticize Ms Mills and her craziness, but lets look at the bigger picture...

The whole basis of wives (and its almost ALWAYS wives who get these large pay-outs) being able to claim such high maintenance support is that they have come to expect a certain lifestyle. Its this line of 'logic' which I just can't comprehend. When else do we ever protect, by law, the expectations of a person for leading a luxury lifestyle? For example, does the law say that rich parents HAVE to support their children in leading a luxury lifestyle for the rest of their lives? Of course not. Does the law support a formerly successful businessman, who is now bankrupt, in continuing to maintain a luxury lifestyle? Of course not. Its just an utterly bizarre concept. Anyone can see that Heather Mills did nothing to help build her husbands career and wealth. If anything, she probably diminished it with her spending. So why is she worth £700 an hour?


Keoni Galt said...

On the other hand, why shouldn't the laws give consideration to a divorcing husband and the lifestyle he became "accustomed" too?

Why shouldn't she have to still cook his dinners and give him BJ's, if that is what he became accustomed to?

Anonymous said...

Couldn’t the divorcing wife just get a job and support herself and may be her child as well. In all this the assumption is that the man is financially responsible whether he is married or not. In fact a divorced man is more responsible than a married one since his right to individually own anything is taken away. And where is the equality in all of this? If women are strong and capable why do they need to take anything from a man?

A point to consider is that the rules governing the ‘marriage contract’ are not finalized when the contract is made. So the law governing a divorce may be completely different than those that where in place when the contract was made. In this sense the law is acting retrospectively.