As Bezoes are divorcing, news outlets are discussing what Ms. Mackenzie will get. In a community property state, this is half, because Mr. Jeff did not have much assets, I assume, before marriage and even then assets are probably accidentally commingled anyway after 25 years. Further, if we would add hypothetical child support here, Mackenzie will get an uncapped sum propertionate to Jeff's income, so overall Mackenzie would gets more than half as a baseline. I assume no prenap.
Do you subscribe to the idea that without Mackenzie Jeff would have made half / less than half of what he has made?
Is this an fair tax on successful people? What if this baseline works as a tempting leverage for a less successful partner, and possibly poisons relationship?
I have no problem to keep existing laws for e.g. 2mln of assets. Above this -- I don't get the fairness or benefits to the society of such a redistribution of wealth.
Do you think that a prenap is the only way to go?
- I am convinced that he would have. It is Jeff and employees, contractors, and partners of Amazon that have created his wealth.
Amazon corp agrees with this, or she should have been listed as a key party for Amazon in SEC filings.
Mackenzie could have made Jeff's life miserable so much that he would have not made it that far. I can grant this one.Jan 91
- Microsoft pockEver heard of marriage tax? Its not uncommon for really rich folks to get divorced to save tax.
As to your original question: prenup or marrying in a non-communal property state is the way to go
- The idea is fair but the reality is that it is so strict that no deviations can be made for individual cases. If one spouse makes $1 million a year and a few months into the marriage, the other spouse says well fuck it I no longer need to work or do anything, then the “lazy” spouse gets half of a conscious and “malicious” decision. And the partner who makes the large sum of money may be kind and try and make the marriage work but in the end is screwing themselves over. If the non-working spouse has had to give up a promising career or done substantial work for the marriage which has enabled the rich partner to make the money then they are absolutely entitled to half.
Put simply, it encourages bad behavior because one partner can be like “yeah you might not like it but what are you going to do, divorce me and be poor?”
Divorce courts need to have less rigidity and more flexibility. As the law stands right now, it is way too easy for partners to just say fuck it I’m gonna sit on my ass all day and get handsomely rewarded for it.
- @tingtang: I don't see a problem. If you have a prenap that e..g. says that everything is separate, there is no problem. Both parties can choose to continue with marriage, or divorce.
Or, if a prenap said "community property on all income" because both were making about the same when it was signed, then when one party quits working, another one can revisit it in the same year. In this case the assets should be split per original agreements in half (they were earned with equal contribution).
- Sure prenups can solve the original problems in the law but my point was more that as written the laws, although well-intentioned, often result in bad outcomes. You effectively need a prenup to correct them and prenups are very awkward to discuss before marriage and often socially unacceptable.
- Absolutely it's fair. I would totally give up half my wealth for someone who compromised to be with me and helped me achieve that wealth in the first place! Esp if he also made it possible for me to even have a chance at having a family. It's your responsibility to choose a non malicious partner.
Besides for bezos, 25 years of love and support to build Amazon isn't something he can put a price on. You can't be that successful unless you have a partner who gives it their all for you.
- “You can’t be that successful unless you have a partner who gives it their all for you”...
So single people cannot be that successful?
“It’s your responsibility to choose a non malicious partner”...
So nobody ever changes after 25 years? Or if they can change then can you please let all of us know where the crystal ball is that lets people know who will become malicious vs not?
- Oracle llllllimoreWhat difference does it make either way? For all practical purposes (except bragging rights) 1/2 of his net worth (or even 1/100) is the same as his whole net worth.
- OpenTable MeliodasThere is no “redistribution of wealth.” 50% is what they agreed to at the start of the contract. It isn’t his company, it belongs to both of them and always has.
- LinkedIn plowingmoreWell, how do you make it more fair? $2M limit is really not a lot.
Say if we have a law saying the redistribution is capped at $10M. Why would anyone pass such a law specifically for rich people?
- I am happy to leave the cap to voters.
I roughly thought that 2m+ assets give you 1m, and at 5% investment return, this is 50k in perpetuity, inflation adjusted. There is a research that people don't need more to be happy, and other similar arguments. Of course, everybody is free to work on top of this...