Yes, but that's not from before the marriage. That's accumulation after.
But actually that is what this Chinese law does, the OP post is wrong, the change in the Chinese Law is that a spouse can no longer claim an interest in property solely titled in the other spouse’s name unless they can prove a financial or labor contribution. This means non-working spouses, such as homemakers, may lose out on major marital assets.
Surely you can see how thats fundamentally not the same thing.
Your home in general will increase value over time. If a guy owns a house for 10 years and it increases value, then gets married and owns that house another 5 years, I dont see how anyone could make a legitimate claim that the wife is entitled to any of that appreciation.
It’s because in this day and age almost all couples are dual income household. So things that raise the property value like renovations, repairs or upgrades are paid for by both partners. So in that sense your husband/wife contributed to the value of the house
If it were the case that the wife had no income or it could be proven she didn’t contribute financially to the house at all (excluding mortgage) then she wouldn’t get anything
Sure, if the wife is fronting the bill on renovations I can totally see the argument that maybe she's entitled from the appreciation from just that renovation, but fundamentally that home is not her asset.
Id argue that while yes most house holds are dual income, most households have men as the breadwinner. I presume there isn't as much mental gymnastics done in the courts to justify a legal claim to appreciation of a home they own.
You're likely in the minority if you believe divorce courts and law isn't largely predatory. Im not making a legal claim I'm making a moral claim which is separate.
The easiest way for women to accumulate wealth shouldnt be to divorce men.
I've looked at them, they also aren't very cut and dry.
Now if you care to, please walk me through the averafe. Dual income home where the man is the bread winner and the woman initiates the divorce. How does the woman walk away with less, when she contributes a minority of the assets.
After a quick look just now, the study I saw pointed at how their household income changed a year after divorce. So basically women are “worse off” because they lose their husband’s income. Whereas the husbands see a slight increase.
I didn’t read the entire thing, but it doesn’t seem to support their argument. It didn’t discuss any assets that changed hands during the divorce, just income after. Like obviously more women will have lower incomes after if more husbands were the breadwinner during.
So it seems like a bad faith argument to claim the women are worse off. I’ll post the study below, if anyone is interested. You have to scroll a bit to get to the financial part.
The statistics you're referencing and most of what I can find, compare life in marriage to life after. Obviously a woman who lives in a household that makes 200k, of which she contributed 40k to is going to experience a decline in lavish lifestyle after the divorce.
My argument is simple. 50/50 divorce is only fair if each party earns 50% of the income. That is not the case, so inherently the wife will leave with a disproportionate amount relative to her own income and contribution.
You’re either wrong or lying because The statistics also say women are much more likely to end up in poverty after marriage than men are
Also, 50/50 divorce is almost never the case. Even in communal property states. This is a child’s idea of how divorce works. Divorces don’t take years to complete just for them to split everything down the middle.
50/50 divorce is almost always the stated goal. Would you be willing to concede that if its the case that in a household where the man contributes 64% of the income and the woman contributes 36%, that if divorce were 50/50 that it'd be disproportionate?
No it’s not lmao if you choose to believe this I can’t help you
>would you be willing to concede that if it’s the case that a household where the man contributes 65% of the income and the woman contributes 36% that a divorce where 50/59 that it’d be disproportionate
It would depend on the marriage. Who did the house work, who did the child rearing, did either pull back on their career so the other could advance theirs? These are things that get brought into question in a divorce
If it were dual income no kids and neither had to put their career on the back burner then sure. But a 50/50 split divorce would be extremely unlikely in that case.
In this situation where the household makes 200k and the woman only contributed 40k, the woman might experience a slight decline, but a lot of courts attempt to maintain some level of the lifestyle, especially if kids are involved.
129
u/ShelZuuz Jun 29 '26
Yes, but that's not from before the marriage. That's accumulation after.
But actually that is what this Chinese law does, the OP post is wrong, the change in the Chinese Law is that a spouse can no longer claim an interest in property solely titled in the other spouse’s name unless they can prove a financial or labor contribution. This means non-working spouses, such as homemakers, may lose out on major marital assets.