I don't know why any of that is relevant to my position. It doesn't seem to conflict with any of it.
Rodgers' wife wants 51 house and half his wages.
- Thread starter Rosco
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
I don't know why any of that is relevant to my position. It doesn't seem to conflict with any of it.
Is she English? If so, surely that's worth something. Being married to a national of the country you've emigrated to brings with it huge benefits in terms of assimilation and understanding how to function in English society.
I was replying to your comment that a wife can't effect their husbands career.
It was an actual example showing that a wife (or husband in this case) can effect their other half's career.
Looking after the kids is a contribution I've allowed for and acknowledged as valuable countless times already.
You've now shifted the focus of your argument away from the principle of "a wife has no material influence on the success of a man's career" to "it's too hard to quantify and therefore place a value on her contribution" - which isn't something I brought up.
I simply took issue with you stating that "what she puts into it has almost no bearing on what *he* earns" - a position that you've been gradually conceding until we reach this point, where you abandon the argument altogether in favour of something different, because you know you're wrong.
I await your expletive laden, irrelevant rant eagerly. You get so angry when you see your arse, it's so cute
Why would selling off 51 of 102 houses kill the business ? It wouldn't, it's an illogical argument, it's not a manufacturing plant !
I've not conceded anything. Obviously when talking in general about large topics one omits exceptional cases such as you've cited and concentrates on the relevant norms.
The point isn't that no wife could ever have an effect (fucking obviously). The point is that the normal role of a wife in a marriage is not a material influence.
PS I'm glad you're back to personal hostility. It's much preferable to the horrible oleaginous compliments you've recently tried to smother me in when our little tedious arguments reach their climaxes.
That wasn't hostility peter, it was affection laced with condescension.
Jeez, you're so paranoid and touchy these days
Jeez, you're so paranoid and touchy these days
Depends which ones were sold and what time because of market conditions. Nobody wants to sell at a loss. It may also put people out of work who no doubt work to maintain the properties. It would also create a huge and unnecessary tax bill and necessitate repayment of loans and any new investment in the properties would be lost. It would render a lot of time and effort a waste of time and basically be a destructive act and nothing to do with business.
You know the vault? This thread makes me think there should be a room 101.
Half delete, half Room 101 button. Fairs fair.
£5K per year is valuable?
Its a wonder you manage to retain all the household staff at Hague Manor - has the butler not made representations on behalf of the poor chambermaids?
His trolling has just reached stupid levels is all.
When I said previous standard of living I was alluding to her lifestyle when she was married and living with Rodgers her then Husband.
Apart from the fact that FFF has just shown how a partner In marriage has materially the spouses earning potential.
Ross has too.
And I'm sure countless other people, self included, will tell you that their "successful careers" and therefore earning potential, were helped and materially improved by the influence and input of their partners.
You can pretend it's not the case all you want.
But you'd be utterly and completely wrong.
Yup - I'm mostly surprised that he found someone stupid enough to be his partner ! Fucking amazing with an attitude like that. Or maybe he is just being provocative
And I'm sure people could wheel an equal number of examples of where a man/woman has been equally as successful in their careers with zero help from their other half, or the other half has been a hinderance to their careers.
The way this is going it sounds like people are convinced that a man/woman is incapable of being good at their job or building a business empire without being married, and that if their other half wasn't there they'd be an absolute failure.
What 'attitude'? What does that even mean?
So I don't think a partner to a relationship should be billed for every little piece of emotional support he receives..... and that makes *me* the misanthrope????????
No.
But thinking that a spouse can't have a positive or "material" impact is borderline retarded.
It's crystal clear that what most people are saying is that IN A RELATIONSHIP sometimes one partner will take a roll managing the family and helping create an environment where the other spouse can achieve maximum earning potential because you'd BE RAISING A FAMILY AS WELL AS PURSUING A CAREER.
But as much as you dislike the notion it is actually simple to place a value on such a contribution *to a career*.
Childcare = the price of a good nanny and/or nursery
Other sundry assistance = the salary of a domestic servant
I'm not saying it's a romantic or attractive reality. But I do think it is the unfortunate truth.
If you can't see that assessing a housewife / househusband's value to a relationship at 5k a year is a one sided attitude towards a partnership there is point in debating this with you. Tell me how much should she invoice him for the two children - in the Hague cosmos that is, there must be some cost/benefit there
I don't think she should invoice him anything, that's an ugly notion, to put it lightly.
I don't know how else you could place a value on the work that a housewife does other than by applying the rate of a paid servant. I genuinely don't. What would you suggest as superior?
I did.
You acknowledged looking after the kids was important.
In your very next post you then said you didn't see how the "normal role of a wife" could materially influence the relationship.
This, despite the fact that FFF had just clearly told you that his role in the relationship allowed his wife to pursue career and therefore promotions and increased earning potential because FFF and his partner made the decision (I presume) that the best thing for their families future was for her to pursue her career and him to forgo his and concentrate on looking after the family.
Now you tell me - if FFF had refused to look after the family and preferred to concentrate on his own career - would his partner have been able to focus on her career.
You're quite clearly wrong on this.
- Status
