New divorce app to help couples split assets in New York without lawyers

Post by giantg2 » Sat, Jul 23, 2022, 5:55 PM UTC

sjtindell wrote: post #48

candiddevmike wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever been through a divorce? Splitting assets equally is an after thought for most folks. They (or the one that filled) just want to get the thing over with, quickly, and a lawyer makes that happen.

This doesn’t sound right at all. The classic story is “he/she took me to the cleaners”, fighting over every possible asset, being forced to sell a house or property you don’t want to because the spouse demands half. I don’t know the frequency but it happens. My own parents fought hard over the house in particular and my mother ended up having to buy my father out at a huge loss to avoid selling it.

Post by s1artibartfast » Sat, Jul 23, 2022, 7:19 PM UTC

giantg2 wrote: post #210

4ad wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you have to pay more in taxes, having kids is more challenging, getting a mortgage becomes more expensive, immigration becomes impossible, and in some countries even travel becomes difficult.

"Then you have to pay more in taxes" How? Taxes for couples are generally just doubled. You can actually save on taxes by not being married and maneuvering who claims what (house, dependants, etc).

Post by Dracophoenix » Sat, Jul 23, 2022, 9:05 PM UTC

skissane wrote: post #208

XorNot wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's the state using it's monopoly on violence to interfere with the intimate lives of private citizens. The government doesn't have a right to tell you which consenting adults you can be in a relationship with or have sex with, which is what interfering with divorce is trying to do. If the state wants to protect children, then it can focus it's efforts on that and maybe start by not trying to force people wh…

> Because it's the state using it's monopoly on violence Divorce is itself an instance of the state’s “monopoly on violence”. A state agent (a judge) will decide on issues such as property and custody, and then the state’s “monopoly on violence” will be used to enforce that judicial decision. “At gunpoint” even. Or else, the parties may reach an agreement, a settlement - coerced by the threat of a judge deciding it i…

Post by giantg2 » Sat, Jul 23, 2022, 10:44 PM UTC

s1artibartfast wrote: post #213

giantg2 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Then you have to pay more in taxes" How? Taxes for couples are generally just doubled. You can actually save on taxes by not being married and maneuvering who claims what (house, dependants, etc).

Taxes are generally Progressive actually so the overall rate is higher for one person then two splitting. Some major tax deductions like the mortgage deduction are per person as well, so two people with a shared income get twice the deduction as one person with an income

Post by skissane » Sat, Jul 23, 2022, 11:33 PM UTC

Dracophoenix wrote: post #215

skissane wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because it's the state using it's monopoly on violence Divorce is itself an instance of the state’s “monopoly on violence”. A state agent (a judge) will decide on issues such as property and custody, and then the state’s “monopoly on violence” will be used to enforce that judicial decision. “At gunpoint” even. Or else, the parties may reach an agreement, a settlement - coerced by the threat of a judge deciding it i…

If you despise the violence the state used to make you and your father miserable, the consistent position would be to advocate for doing away with the state's monopoly on dictating the terms of marriage (and, consequently, divorce) in the first place.