Exactly the laws of attraction are real. Pretty woman don't date ugly men without an agenda or unless they are about to become homeless.
Our valued sponsor
Hide assets before marriage?
- Thread starter Silvio
- Start date
Exactly the laws of attraction are real. Pretty woman don't date ugly men without an agenda or unless they are about to become homeless.
It is similar to business generally speaking. Nice looking businesses don't attract poor people if they consider to sell.
I had the impression that these guys made their "problems" disappear, hence less problems of this nature appear. She birthed him two daughters, which of course is a factor. It seems they eventually settled out of court (she got 564 M).Unfortunately it did happen to a Russian oligarch big time
.Isn’t there something like marriage prenup?
Intolerable Cruelty movie comes to my mind.
Best is to not get married if there is such concern about asset protection. I know families with kids living without marriage long term and there is nothing wrong with it. In fact it can only come as a benefit, tax benefit, single mothers have usually better tax privileges. In case of having an urgent tax residency change need e.g. to cash out some profits, there is no need to move your family across the globe to prove “center of interest” location.
In the end however being with someone married many years, having kids I can’t see anything wrong in splitting the assets in case of divorce. Things can go sideways in life and there is nothing wrong in bearing the consequences. People who are hiding money, are being slapped with 75% undeclared income tax in some countries and that’s even worse end scenario.
Intolerable Cruelty movie comes to my mind.
Best is to not get married if there is such concern about asset protection. I know families with kids living without marriage long term and there is nothing wrong with it. In fact it can only come as a benefit, tax benefit, single mothers have usually better tax privileges. In case of having an urgent tax residency change need e.g. to cash out some profits, there is no need to move your family across the globe to prove “center of interest” location.
In the end however being with someone married many years, having kids I can’t see anything wrong in splitting the assets in case of divorce. Things can go sideways in life and there is nothing wrong in bearing the consequences. People who are hiding money, are being slapped with 75% undeclared income tax in some countries and that’s even worse end scenario.
I mean they are the same age I think because they met as students, she has much plastic surgery. Is he handsome no, but she is not all that in looks either.
He should have protected his assets correctly, but his need to swing his dick and show his wealth off has attracted the wrong people to him. Even a good person can be lured by low hanging fruit of divorce husband and become rich take half his stuff.
Courts increasingly ignore pre-nups and most people are stupid so don't even understand how pre-nups work. Pre-nups protect the assets you have BEFORE the marriage, just like a trust is suppose to protect your assets BEFORE a lawsuit or bad event. Thinking you can use a pre-nup to protect assets you acquire during course of marriage is equivalent to thinking you can put assets into a trust to avoid paying out money after you already been sued. One would need a post nup to accomplish what you are thinking. Even where a rich man tries to use a pre-nup and was rich before he got married, courts frequently try to break them claiming they violate case law and are not equitable.
In most Western nations there is some version of common law marriage. Just because you don't propose to a woman, doesn't mean the courts will accept you are not married. If you are living 2-3 years with a woman the court will view you as married as someone who had a wedding or went to the court house.
What's the point of asset protection to avoid 30-40% Western taxes when you are risking losing 50-90%+ of your income/wealth to divorce, divorce lawyers, alimony, and excessive child support?
The better option is to not live with a woman or if you must do so, do it in a place where common law is not recognized like Saudi or something.
There are prenups that protect assets during marriage as well and don't victim complex too much. Prenups generally work.
I think people in the end really need to look at why they are getting married. Is it simply cultural, social pressure, a true desire to share ones life and assets or just to have free sex, cooking, cleaning and not feel lonely. Love is an intangible blinding force that overrides ones logic and common sense. Humans need companionship in life but if you are not mentally ready to write off maybe 50%+ of your assets if things go wrong do not enter a marriage. Do not let yourself feel pressured or feel that time is against you.
P.S If in any doubt marry a woman that is much more wealthier than you are and where you are likely to come out of any divorce in a better position
.
P.S If in any doubt marry a woman that is much more wealthier than you are and where you are likely to come out of any divorce in a better position
.The above from @Martin Everson may be the best advise. Don't get married if you don't want to share your assets.
guys, most people have nothing to fear about but their whole future life working to survive - this applies to everyone who cannot quit his job tomorrow without decreasing his life standard (no matter how much he is earning today) - in this context this discussion is rather unproductive ;-)
In Monaco, marriages automatically exclude the wealth gathered up to that point (séparation de biens). The magazine Politico run a nice story about it.
Yes, I addressed them specifically, they are called post-nups. Have you looked at prenups in most Western states? What country are you that generally recognize prenups?
In USA and Canada, family law judges treat them like toilet paper and routinely claim 1 clause in the contract is not equitable or violates case law, so won't count.
Again, post-nups that are not equitable or are not in keeping with case law will be rejected. If you think you are going to be a millionaire, marry a woman, use a pre-nup, and you have $1 million and divorce, and she walks away with $20k, you need to read the case law, very few Western courts will allow this. They will throw it out, and claim not equitable. Unless she has no lawyer or a retarded lawyer, she is going to get an "equitable" share which is typically at least 25%+ and it is usually closer to 50% of net assets.
Post--nups are also problematic, because they often are viewed by the court as violating community property rules. If you think you are going to have a woman you marry sign a post-nup and live in your house in a community property state, and then kick her out with nothing because you have a post-nup, almost no court is going to allow that. Yeah you can find a few exceptions, but family law courts are really just women's courts. The courts use the principle of equity and equitable distributions to override any contract you have with your wife. Maybe you are in some Islamic nation where pre-nups and post-nups are truly honoured, but its not like that in the West.
"Treat them like toilet paper" is not a valid, logical response. Judge can't treat something like "toilet paper". Everything is mandated by actual laws.
If you live in a cucked country where women always win divorce cases then:
1) Don't get married, but cohabitate instead
2) Move to a non-cucked country
Simple as
EDIT: Also you can hide all assets in Bitcoin. No judge or police or anyone will be able to extract 24 word seed from your brain.
Educate, I mean no disrespect here, but have you ever been inside a court room?
Judges aren't always logical, and there logic is often times motivated towards political goals of the judiciary counsels, lawyers and politicians and "the public good". Family courts are incredibly biased towards men in divorce proceedings and case laws are actual laws. The doctrine of equity is a formal part of case law in virtually every Western and most non-western courts. These case laws are interpreted as overriding actual contracts by parties who have agreed to them. This is why courts routinely disregard pre-nups.
Courts have recognized that men have basically stopped marrying women in formal ceremonies in large numbers, so to keep themselves relevant they treat cohabitating couples as common law married people. Hence the rise of "palimony". In some jurisidictions like Canada, even when men have purposely avoided marrying women and even refused to cohabitate with them, the family courts are now saying doesn't matter, you dated for 10 years, well we are going to treat you as if you were married for 10 years.
Much of the crap we see with taxation is spreading into other areas, where governments are behaving increasingly fascist to extract wealth from those who have to give to others.
As for the idea of moving to a non-cuck country. Please tell me what nation this is? What guarantee do I have that when I move there, women's rights group don't use the USA government to pressure that nation to give "women's rights" and make it cucked? You know like how they pressure Saudi Arabia?
You can hide your assets in bitcoin, to a degree I believe. You'd probably want to use the bitcoin ATMs which have low caps, but there are limited number of exchanges, most use KYC rules, so how anonymous is this really?
This isn't true. Unless you live in some backwards fucktard country. I have never witnessed such a thing.
Moldova
Us, Canada, much of the anglo world is like this, where are you a lawyer in moldova?
So you live in backwards country then. Move too a normal one which isn't cucked.
Latest Threads
-
-
-
-
Brokerage account -> spending card
- Started by russelw65
- Replies: 0
-
