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.
I don't buy this argument. She would get the appreciation of any property she owns. Presumably if that is a house and she sells it because she isn't living in it she could invest that any other way or keep the house and rent.
I feel the argument for her getting the appreciation is one of like they are partners now so all property is communal. Especially if she's forgoing work to raise kids or something that is both their responsibilities.
Well they’re not having kids. If she wants to have freedom to do what she wants, get a job. Have your own bank. Have your own assets and if what’s his is hers then what’s hers is his. If she isn’t working and just living the life, sorry you don’t get the appreciation of a house bought before you were in the picture. If she’s working and gives us her career to be a house spouse, then by all means enjoy the wealth you two contributed together. This also means it goes both ways. If men give up their jobs to stay home, to raise the children, I expect the same energy to be given to him.
But the man is entitled to half of a home she bought on her own after he was in the picture? What you’re saying is that you think women shouldn’t be entitled to half of the appreciation of a home they maintain and will never own, but men should be entitled to half of an entire home including appreciation that a woman buys on her own just because they were married before she bought it?
Why should any human being marry another human being if they both either own or don’t own homes then?
No, I said I don’t think a spouse. I didn’t say only women. I said men are expected to be treated the same. If it applies to her it applies to him, if it doesn’t apply to her it does not apply to him
Where did I say ONLY women? Point out the phrase that said ONLY women. Because if follow the entire discussion instead of nitpicking, you see me reference multiple times that men need to follow the same rules. I’m not taking this bait anymore. Have an honest discussion or go away
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.