Cevilia

essentially nothing has changed, except the taxpayer's dollar will be to a fed court instead of a state court [ie judges will move from one juris to another]

it is said that under previous state law that the dreaded s 75(2) factors did not apply, that is fantasy

as the courts continue to tell us, 95% of cases are "property settlements" and not "property determinations" ie by a judge, where everything is in the open and the court must record exactly what was for contribution and what was for future "maintenance" ie s 75(2) goodies.

so for the 95% who got done over under what lawyers call House & Garden, there is just one conglomerate percentage, ie 80% to Buttercup and 20% to bloke, AND IT MATTERED NOT if the House & Garden was Fed or State

so all that will happen for the 95% [married or not] is that nothing changes

that is the stupidity of this deal - one sees a system that is totally broken and inequitable for married folk but says "hey I want a slice of that"

lemmings to the sea

Philips, the fact is that under today's marriage laws, marriage
can be far more lucrative as a business, then earning wealth by any
other means. What is "fair and just" is open to debate.

I think that is a great shame, as it has devalued the meaning of
marriage. Sounds like its going to do the same for relationships.

Who stands to benefit hugely? Well lawyers of course.

We need some basic principles to apply in all these cases. For
instance, each partner keeps what they brought into a marriage,
but split what they accumulated during the relationship. This
could be altered, where there are kids involved etc.

The present system, where some judge can at the stroke of a pen,
give away millions of $ of one person's assets to another, even
if the recipient had nothing at all to do with earning that income,
is basically flawed.

Sadly, what all this means, is that a girl can accumulate far more
tax free wealth on her back, marrying the right partner, then
she ever could standing up. That kind of devalues marriage in
my books, but that is just my opinion

Be careful what you wish for girls. A nanny state can be no better pimp than it is a parent.

Yabby said

Who stands to benefit hugely? Well lawyers of course.

We need some basic principles to apply in all these cases. For
instance, each partner keeps what they brought into a marriage,
but split what they accumulated during the relationship. This
could be altered, where there are kids involved etc.

The present system, where some judge can at the stroke of a pen,
give away millions of $ of one person's assets to another, even
if the recipient had nothing at all to do with earning that income,
is basically flawed.

You start off correctly saying lawyers benefit [ie the $20 billion pa winfall from people stupid enough to use a lawyer to lose their property]

then you go off and blame the judge, even though he is only involved in 5% of cases [according to the court]

I agree it it true that if you went before a judge using a lawyer, he/she will tell the judge you WANT to give Buttercup 80% and the judge will say OK, if that's what he wants ....

but hey, YOU yourself could go to the judge FREE of cost and depose the fact Buttercup simply lay on her back [and thanked the Queen] and argue YOU should get 95% [applying Crawford 1979, Pierce 1998 etc]

he would then say OK

no lawyer will help you mate, it is YOUR money so YOU must protect it

it's all KISS

philips:"I see you still think you can gain some type of "advantage" by propagating your conspiracy theories about who is who is who is who"

There's no conspiracy since there's only one person posting over both handles. That's against OLO rules, dear, do try to keep up. If you can't make your case by properly arguing your point, then inventing an imaginary friend won't help.

philips:"I'm not samsung"

Suuure you're not, and Santa is coming down the chimney in a few short months. I do believe a quick message to the administrators is in order. IPs will tell the story.

Now, how about answering the questions I put to you earlier - either handle will do for that. Why are you so anti-male? Every post you make is based on the assumption that men are bad and determined to do women and children down. What on Earth made you so bitter and twisted? That's a serious question, BTW, I'm genuinely interested. Have you had some terrible experience at the hands of a man or men? If not that, what?

Well this is simply just forcing another wedge into the already declining rate of relationships between young men and women.

I read somewhere that there is an increasing trend for young blokes to forego a relationship as it is becoming all to hard.

Many of them now earn in excess of 100K per year, live the life or Riley, go out with their mates, get drunk, maybe get laid and if they don't, who cares cause they just visit the brothel on the way home.

No misses. no kids, no commitments, and it's all been brought on by the 'do-gooders' of our society who just can't leave well enough alone.

Now if this insane law gets passed we will see lots of cases whereby a flat mate will try to screw a former flat mate by trying to prove a relationship existed, while the lawyers will once again rub their hands together with joy!

And of cause it will most likely force the rents up as landlords who rent their rooms out will no doubt require a legal document to be signed to protect their rights.

Who ever conjures up these laws need to get a life!