Interesting Links for 27-12-2017

[andrewducker]

In Star Wars, why isn't hyperspace ramming a standard weapon?

(tags: StarWars )

What really happened in the Christmas truce of 1914?

(tags: war wwi history )

STAR WNRS. Yes, Star Wnrs (impressive knockoff "Lego" kits)

(tags: StarWars Lego fraud )

On the attacks on universities over "Free Speech"

(tags: University freespeech politics uk )

SF engineer comes into money and now wants wife to sign a post-nuptial agreement

(tags: marriage money )

The Neuroscience of Intelligence

(tags: Intelligence )

Driverless cars became a reality in 2017 and hardly anyone noticed

(tags: cars automation )

“This is Not Going to Go the Way You Think”: The Last Jedi Is Subversive As Fuck

(tags: StarWars )

Star Wars’ Vice-Admiral Holdo and Our Expectations for Female Military Power

(tags: StarWars )

A History Of The Silmarils In The Fifth Age

(tags: Tolkien lotr )

Comments

[mountainkiss]

What stood out to you from the postnup article? Why is this one that you chose to link up?

[andrewducker]

I'd not encountered the idea of post-nuptial agreements before, and found the discussion underneath fascinating.

(Agreeing mostly with the lawyer who said that counselling to find out the deeper issue was a good first step.)

[movingfinger]

That guy is listening to the techbros he works with and he may have wrecked his marriage as a result. Dropping that bomb before Christmas was unconscionable. I hope she has a good lawyer.

The Musk postnup case is famous, or more accurately notorious. It is the type specimen for "why you should not ever sign one of those without your own equally expensive counsel" and "why just proposing one warns your partner that you're planning to be a douche."

[fub]

I agree it's kinda sketchy, but there may be a valid reason for it. The original question has been removed, so I don't know the details, but if the husband got shares, and there is a shareholder agreement, then it could make sense for his fellow shareholders to ask for a post-nup. Because then, in essence, his spouse will hold half of his shares. And they're in business with him, not with his spouse.

[andrewducker]

It wasn't clear from her explanation.

But if that was the case then he should have said so, and made it clear that she wouldn't be financially affected.

[movingfinger]

But she will be financially affected (and she already is financially affected, if he invested their assets in the company).

It doesn't matter how he acquired the shares. They are a marital asset, and if the disposition of the shares following his death or disability is seen to be a potential problem, the corporation's bylaws have to address that, for example by making a proviso for a buyout. They're outsourcing their problem into their employees' relationships with this "postnup" proposal. Requesting, that the spouse renounce rights to a marital asset, is shady, and it's rather thickwitted too.

If the spouse's partners are requesting that he do this, they're showing a willingness to screw someone over and he should be alert for shenanigans in the future. It's very common in small startups for a kind of feeding frenzy to push out some of the founders, however valuable their contributions may have been, as soon as the real money looms on the horizon.

[andrewducker]

Oh yes - I'm sure that it wouldn't work out perfectly.

I can see that a compromise could be found where she can be bought out while not losing any monetary value. But I can also see that being...tricky to negotiate, and not necessarily what she wants.

And I definitely think that springing the post-nup on her is asking for disaster.

[snippy]

Post-nups aren't even binding in some jurisdictions (Oregon, for one). A judge can just void it, or make her own distributions of the parties' property as she sees fit.

[channelpenguin]

Marriage is a financial contract. Those that do not understand that should not do it, nor those that do not need it.

I will never marry again, because of this. If I start a company, do all the work and my spouse none, if we divorce, he gets half PLUS can come back and ask for more if the business does better in the future! Even if it's a limited company and he is not a shareholder and has no role in the company. If I make great investments with my own money while we are living in a flat / house that I bought entirely with my own money - guess what, he gets half of both.

It make no sense to me why someone who realises this would legally marry. The only advantages are to the poorer / lower earning partner.

I did not understand until I was there, and happily my divorce was equitable and fair. I did not seek to gain any of his assets nor he mine, and I in fact left joint property (boats, car, furniture) behind.

Making non-legally-binding emotional commitments is FINE by me, just to be clear. Admirable. Supporting people *voluntarily* is fine - just keep the law out of it.

[andrewducker]

It makes sense when the purpose of marriage was to continue the family - so one of you would work externally, and one would raise the children, and this was considered a joint effort for which you were both equally rewarded.

[channelpenguin]

Indeed it might have made sense in those circumstances (and other, more distant past scenarios involving nobility/royalty, territory, large scale property and war prevention), but those are not what we have now.

On the other had, I have to say, that upon reflection, we sadly DO need some laws to look after whoever has taken the financial / earning potential hit by being the main child carer in the case of seperation. Because people are b'stards sometimes. But that should apply in all cases, not just marriages. Other than that (or possibly also long term elderly / disabled / sick care of the partners relatives), I feel the law should not interfere. In the case of those who hire nannies, tutors and other domestic staff in order to keep on working at the former level - then they would not be included, as they have not been disadvantaged - they *chose* to have the children.

I guess I am making a case for purely "religious" / "symbolic" marriage, for those that want it, but that it has no civil power. Combined with legal safeguards for all sketched out above.

It's not an easy topic, and my thoughts are not fully-formed. My basic thoughts/feelings seem to be

"marriage, even including having kids with someone, should not be a meal ticket for life for anyone"

Ditto just "having kids"

"no one should dodge financial responsibilty for their children"

"there should be no default to overall joint finances - couples should retain individual finances, and each jointly-paid item should be negotiated seperately and carefully, with legal contracts as required"

The practicalities, as ever, would get more complex. Especially in the case of large income gaps, especially those arising during the course of a relationship. Where one partner is much richer than the other, and wants more expensive options for childcare, schooling housing, hobbies etc, there will always have to be compromises, or the richer partner might choose to voluntarily pay more as a gift, free of all obligation.

In my own marriage and relationships, we have had absolutely seperate finances. If we both wanted to do / have something and only I could afford it - only I did it or got it, and paid for it. In my divorce, the joint property where he contributed more than me (a boat) - I left behind because I could not think of solution that seemed fair to me. Ditto the house, because he had bought it before we met, paid the whole mortgage and all the repair costs and did all the repairs. In another long-term relationship, I once borrowed a substantial amount of money from him at interest with an agreed payment schedule (which I repaid before time). I realise some people will find that all very odd. To me it seems only fair.

I loathed the thought that I might legally be held reliable for debts my husband might have or incur without my knowledge. But I did not want to restrict his own ability to take risks he felt approriate for him, or to have to consult with me or gain my approval. And vice versa. So yeah, I am definitely not a natural for a financially binding marriage!

I have seen too many people, men and women both, screwed over by divorce, so whatever we have now is clearly not ideal... but I am not claiming to have soutions!

[naath]

The case would be that while you did all the company work your spouse was doing, eg, childcare that freed you up to make the money. Historically a wife might well be doing the books or PAing or running networking events all without a salary or official job title and might reasonably expect compensation for that work. I don't think current marriage law is very good at understanding the sort of couple who both contribute both financially and otherwise in equal measure, neither giving up income to further the other's earning power.

There are other aspects to marriage law though that you might want, some tax changes, next of kin status, intestacy law. And divorce ought to cover the future care of children.