If DeSantis wins

[Baffle]

There is little evidence that courts these days are biased.

But this is bearing in mind that courts are generally assessing need, not blame: a pragmatic future, not a moral judgement on the past. For instance, if the children are contested they will generally go to the parent deemed most capable of their childcare. If the woman has been the majority carer in the marriage (as is more often the case than the man), this would be taken into account as evidence that she should continue in that role and all else being equal is therefore likely to win custody. Even if she were at fault, for instance was unfaithful, the divorce needs to consider what is good for the children ahead of vindicating the man's outrage at her cheating. I think this is the sort of context where many people think the courts are unfair in divorce.

I think courts are mostly biased in favour of the status quo which sees women as caregivers rather than biased in favour of women per se (given my own lack of desire to be a caregiver I would say this is a bias against women really). I'm not convinced by the argument that the woman having been the caregiver prior to divorce means she's the best choice for custody. The situation has changed post-divorce, and the working parent shouldn't be discounted given that they were the working parent because the other was the caregiver.

(These are my opinions as an uninformed bystander, and I might just change them later on a whim.)

 

[Ag3ma]

Or, you know, it's actually a fact backed up by statistics. 66% of all divorces are initiated by women and it's been as high as 75%. 90% of the time women get custody of the child in a divorce. Women get 65% of time with their child to men's 35%. 83% of child support is awarded to women and men are awarded 10% less even when they are. A mere 3% of all alimony recipients are male in spite of the number of women breadwinners greatly increasing.

All of that requires context.

For instance, Women get primary custody 90% of the time (questionable, other figures are lower to ~80%), but that's overall, not through court decisions. In about half of divorces, men do not even ask for custody. In most of the rest, the wife is more likely to be conceded custody through negotiation. When custody ends up in a court, studies suggest men get a fair deal overall.

 

[Cheetodust]

25% of domestic violence is committed against men.

Which tells us nothing about the ratio of male perpetrators to female perpetrators because there are gay people. Also even taking that 25% at face value and assuming that 25% of DV victims are men victimised by women I think you might notice that Absent's point was that the majority of DV was by men. Now, it gets complicated here, but 25% isn't most. It's actually not even half. It's considerably less really. So I'm pretty sure Absent's point stands.

 

[Ag3ma]

Which tells us nothing about the ratio of male perpetrators to female perpetrators because there are gay people. Also even taking that 25% at face value and assuming that 25% of DV victims are men victimised by women I think you might notice that Absent's point was that the majority of DV was by men. Now, it gets complicated here, but 25% isn't most. It's actually not even half. It's considerably less really. So I'm pretty sure Absent's point stands.

Other context might be severity and frequency of domestic violence. Are we talking low-level (e.g. rare slaps during heated arguments), or substantially worse? Statistics tend to show greater gender disparity at the serious end of DV.

 

[Ag3ma]

I'm not convinced by the argument that the woman having been the caregiver prior to divorce means she's the best choice for custody.

Being primary caregiver before divorce is certainly no guarantee of being a better caregiver after divorce for sure, but it is and should be a factor.

The difference may be quite marginal - for instance the "provider" works 8-6 weekdays but is heavily invested in their kids at evenings and weekends. Although the primary carer has more contact, it's unlikely to mean much.

However, you then have consider that in other families the non-primary caregiver might have put much less time in. They may have a significantly weaker emotional bond with a child, less idea what the child does, likes, how to deal with them effectively and so on. As a result the child might feel less safe and comfortable around that parent. A court should consider how much of a wrench it would be to remove a child from a parent that they have a close relationship with in favour of one they are less close to, and how distressing and disruptive that may be for the child. It's bad enough for a child to lose ready access any parent, never mind the one they were closest to.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

All of that requires context.

For instance, Women get primary custody 90% of the time (questionable, other figures are lower to ~80%), but that's overall, not through court decisions. In about half of divorces, men do not even ask for custody. In most of the rest, the wife is more likely to be conceded custody through negotiation. When custody ends up in a court, studies suggest men get a fair deal overall.

Yep. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy

Fathers and Mothers: Child Custody Myths | Dad’s Divorce Law

Some beliefs about fathers’ rights in child custody and child support cases are untrue. A skilled divorce attorney can provide legal help to divorcing dads.

www.dadsdivorcelaw.com

 

[Phoenixmgs]

So when you said "home", you didn't... consider that to include the condo you live in? This is some weak shit.

What the fuck you even talking about? "Home" wasn't even a word I used in my initial post. I said why rent when you can own. Then everyone is like houses are so expensive. Uhh... you don't need to buy a full-on house to not rent.

You told me I didn't have to save 20%. That's the point we are discussing. You were wrong. Grow up.

I also don't see that big of an issue having to save up to 20% either, I did it. Hell, I can put down 20% right now for a place (without having to sell anything) and that's one year after I put up 20% for my current place. People just don't have good priorities or money sense. I have friends all wanting to get a place right now (all of them living at home with no housing cost, possibly giving their parents a little something), they all make more money than me, and they complain about their current bills. How are they going to afford owning or renting anything if they have problems affording current bills (that don't include a housing expense)?

While some couples do split the whole household duty thing that way, I gotta tell you that hasn't been the majority in reality for a long time simply because one wage is not sufficient to meet current financial demands unless you're earning mid six figures. And even then one of you better be good at budgeting.

Huh, a couple has to earn at least $500K a year to meet financial demands? You can easily live off of $100K per couple and definitely less.

 

[Baffle]

Huh, a couple has to earn at least $500K a year to meet financial demands? You can easily live off of $100K per couple and definitely less.

I believe Australia is very expensive to live in.

 

[Ag3ma]

Huh, a couple has to earn at least $500K a year to meet financial demands? You can easily live off of $100K per couple and definitely less.

On the left of every post is the user avatar plus some details about them. One of those (optional) is country. It's worth checking that out sometimes before you start correcting them.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

On the left of every post is the user avatar plus some details about them. One of those (optional) is country. It's worth checking that out sometimes before you start correcting them.

Impossible! Other peoples' lived experiences can't be different from my ignorant assumptions!

 

[Cheetodust]

I also don't see that big of an issue having to save up to 20% either,

A)That isn't the point you made though is it? Stop being a child and admit you were wrong. B) 20% of what? That kind of matters. I live in one of the most expensive countries in Europe in terms of housing.

 

[Silvanus]

What the fuck you even talking about? "Home" wasn't even a word I used in my initial post. I said why rent when you can own. Then everyone is like houses are so expensive. Uhh... you don't need to buy a full-on house to not rent.

...but it was a word you used in the follow up post, the one to which I was actually responding.

This may have escaped your notice, but owning a condominium is also prohibitively expensive in lots of places, including the city in which I live. I know very well that a monthly mortgage repayment would cost less than rent. Yet in order to get one, and be approved to buy, I'd need upfront payment of many tens of thousands of pounds at very very least.

That is beyond my means. Monthly rent payments are not. And so, I end up spending more over a longer period to rent, because the up front money is unavailable to me. And I don't appreciate when people who have zero realistic sense of perspective of the situation smugly tell me I should just own my own property like they do.

 

[Ag3ma]

That is beyond my means. Monthly rent payments are not. And so, I end up spending more over a longer period to rent, because the up front money is unavailable to me. And I don't appreciate when people who have zero realistic sense of perspective of the situation smugly tell me I should just own my own property like they do.

When I last rented, my partner and I were in a house about the same size as the one we bought. We moved to a cheaper area of town, our mortgage was 70% of the value of the house, and the monthly payment was still about a quarter more than the rent were paying previously.

Where we live the average house price is very close to the UK average. So yeah, renting is generally much cheaper except maybe places with very low property values. If you live in an area above the UK average, you're kinda boned when it comes to buying unless you have a lot of money.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I believe Australia is very expensive to live in.

On the left of every post is the user avatar plus some details about them. One of those (optional) is country. It's worth checking that out sometimes before you start correcting them.

Is everything just inflated and the average income for everyone is higher? Because if it's comparable to the US at all, that's pretty ridiculous to need to make 500K.

A)That isn't the point you made though is it? Stop being a child and admit you were wrong. B) 20% of what? That kind of matters. I live in one of the most expensive countries in Europe in terms of housing.

That is one of the points I made, I talked about how to save up for a deposit... Also, looking up Ireland montages, looks like you need 10% deposit, not 20%. I was well within Ireland's lending rules for my place even if I put down just 10% vs 20% (though I could have done more than 20%).

Taking out a mortgage

A mortgage is a long-term financial commitment. You need to assess your finances and ensure that you can manage the repayments. The Central Bank has set limits on the size of residential mortgages.

www.citizensinformation.ie

...but it was a word you used in the follow up post, the one to which I was actually responding.

This may have escaped your notice, but owning a condominium is also prohibitively expensive in lots of places, including the city in which I live. I know very well that a monthly mortgage repayment would cost less than rent. Yet in order to get one, and be approved to buy, I'd need upfront payment of many tens of thousands of pounds at very very least.

That is beyond my means. Monthly rent payments are not. And so, I end up spending more over a longer period to rent, because the up front money is unavailable to me. And I don't appreciate when people who have zero realistic sense of perspective of the situation smugly tell me I should just own my own property like they do.

Below is your first response in this discussion line to me, I mentioned nothing about buying a house in that post you replied to either.

And, that's why I didn't look at all to buy in Chicago (my major city that's basically next door), I hate going into Chicago let alone living there. I worked in the Loop for a couple years, I saw well enough to know I wouldn't want to live there unless I was really well-off. I make below the median and average US income. I made $37K last year and if that's close to or worse than your income (adjusting for differences of real money value between the US and UK), then you can do it if I can do it.

Just that easy, is it?

You have absolutely zero understanding-- or willingness to understand-- the lived reality that other people are in. I'm a graduate, with a relatively large amount of savings. Owning is out of reach.

---

When I last rented, my partner and I were in a house about the same size as the one we bought. We moved to a cheaper area of town, our mortgage was 70% of the value of the house, and the monthly payment was still about a quarter more than the rent were paying previously.

Where we live the average house price is very close to the UK average. So yeah, renting is generally much cheaper except maybe places with very low property values. If you live in an area above the UK average, you're kinda boned when it comes to buying unless you have a lot of money.

Renting SHOULD be cheaper, but in America it isn't.

 

[Elijin]

You make 37K a year, are paying a mortgage and life costs, and saved up a 2nd 20% deposit within 12 months of placing your initial? That math isnt mathing.

 

[Gordon_4]

Is everything just inflated and the average income for everyone is higher? Because if it's comparable to the US at all, that's pretty ridiculous to need to make 500K.

Property is a sticking point because we get a lot of foreign (mainly Chinese) buyers who aren't occupiers and leave the properties vacant which drives up the prices of everything that remains by creating scarcity.

As for mid six figures, that was probably a flub on my part by not being specific. If both parties are bringing in, say, 90K, one income taxes, medicare levy, superannuation and other items are taken care of, that's a combined $125,282 for the household. Sounds pretty sweet, right? Well, average house price in Australia is $1,000,000. Lets imagine our couple here got a bit above that to get the place they really wanted, and had the 120,000k for 10% down. My own bank, loaning out the $1,080,000 remainder on 3.99% interest per annum over 30 years is $5,150 (rounding up 14c) per month. So that multiplied by 12 months is $61,800. Essentially one person's salary is eaten up by the mortgage alone. Now again, 5k a month doesn't sound hard to do on the face of it, but things add up. For example, fuel. Using gallons, Australians pretty well everywhere are paying California's per gallon price for regular, 91 octane: in my case thats about $340 a month for a 90 litre tank. And if you've got kids under 13, well, you're off to the races. Average cost of before and after school care is $80 a head, or, $1600 a month. So that's one car and one kid and we're down two grand, but since this is a two person household, feel free to add another $340 for the second car. Over two thousand a month in expenses so far and we're not even onto food and utilities, never mind luxuries.

So when I say mid six figures, what I should have said was "If the combined income of the household is around $200,000 a year, things are very doable in the current climate and still allow for significant luxuries and savings".

You make 37K a year, are paying a mortgage and life costs, and saved up a 2nd 20% deposit within 12 months of placing your initial? That math isnt mathing.

Depends what that 37,000 can buy and pay for on a day to day basis.

 

[Cheetodust]

Is everything just inflated and the average income for everyone is higher? Because if it's comparable to the US at all, that's pretty ridiculous to need to make 500K.


That is one of the points I made, I talked about how to save up for a deposit... Also, looking up Ireland montages, looks like you need 10% deposit, not 20%. I was well within Ireland's lending rules for my place even if I put down just 10% vs 20% (though I could have done more than 20%).

Taking out a mortgage

A mortgage is a long-term financial commitment. You need to assess your finances and ensure that you can manage the repayments. The Central Bank has set limits on the size of residential mortgages.

www.citizensinformation.ie

Below is your first response in this discussion line to me, I mentioned nothing about buying a house in that post you replied to either.

And, that's why I didn't look at all to buy in Chicago (my major city that's basically next door), I hate going into Chicago let alone living there. I worked in the Loop for a couple years, I saw well enough to know I wouldn't want to live there unless I was really well-off. I make below the median and average US income. I made $37K last year and if that's close to or worse than your income (adjusting for differences of real money value between the US and UK), then you can do it if I can do it.



---


Renting SHOULD be cheaper, but in America it isn't.

I already told you that on a single income it's 20%. Fuck sake. And again 20% of what?

 

[Trunkage]

Just to add a further point to Gordon, the cheapest child care in Australia you can get is $16k a year. Many are well over $20k. That's a fifth of your money if you earn 100k

And, just to give context, the top 10% earners in Australia get just over 100k. Most people paying child care are paying more than 20%

Also, when Gordon talked about mid six figures, I automatically went to 150k... so this might be an Australian thing. I don't know why I went to that. But Phoenixmgs 500k makes a lot of sense off that comment

I've owned my house for 6 years. It's gone up in price about 300k in that time. My pay has not gone up that fast

 

[Ag3ma]

Is everything just inflated and the average income for everyone is higher? Because if it's comparable to the US at all, that's pretty ridiculous to need to make 500K.

Australia also uses $ as the symbol for its currency. Last I recall the Aus$ was worth in the region of 60-80% of the US$, so Aus$500K is somewhere in the region of US$300-400K. Contextually, this is similar to UK house prices (~£280k average).

Not sure what the average houshold income for Australia is, but chances are the mean is lower but the median higher than the USA (because the US rich are really extraordinarily rich, larger wealth gap). Then, as a general rule, prices tend to be higher in other developed countries too, because most other developed countries impose more regulations and taxes. Although this can be very variable depending on good/service in question.

In terms of houses, there are then issues with where you want - or need - to live. An advantage of the USA is that because it's very large there are relatively unfashionable places with modest house prices but which still have lots of opportunities. In many other smaller countries, because they cannot support so many key social and economic hubs, often the less costly places are just a bit... shit.

 

[Silvanus]

And, that's why I didn't look at all to buy in Chicago (my major city that's basically next door), I hate going into Chicago let alone living there. I worked in the Loop for a couple years, I saw well enough to know I wouldn't want to live there unless I was really well-off. I make below the median and average US income. I made $37K last year and if that's close to or worse than your income (adjusting for differences of real money value between the US and UK), then you can do it if I can do it.

Firstly, median income in the US is ~31k. The mean is closer to ~40k. I earn under the median UK income, because while I work in a technically specialised role, I also work in the charity sector, which is severely underpaid.

So now we can see your solution is to move out of the city. So leave my job and everyone I know. Do you have any solutions that would actually be realistic for my circumstances? No, so stop pretending this is a one-size-fits-all issue.

(Besides which, you made zero distinction between the housing market in Seattle and London, which is kind of silly).