You'll be dead so it won't be any concern of yours. Isn't that what you said?
You'll be dead so it won't be any concern of yours. Isn't that what you said?
What business is it of yours who gets your stuff after you die?
Who gets your money?
Not if you are dead.
It's mine, even when I'm dead my will controls the disposition of the assets. What happens with them is my concern. Maybe you don't like it. That's too bad. Perhaps you should go petition the legislature and ask them to make a new law that says "Once somebody is dead their wishes are irrelevant." I'm sure it would be very popular.
Don't let the issue go to court.
How? Somebody files and serves the case they are within their rights to have it go to the judge. They will want to settle based on the strengths and weaknesses of the case. You don't want it going to the judge and you want a good deal settlement then you got to be holding strong cards. An unenforceable prenup is little more than a bluff.
Ignore the nit picky attorney. Just abide by the contract.
You can ignore the attorney but if it goes to the judge and the attorney is correct then you're probably going to get your pre-nup thrown out and lose.
If she were to remarry, that would be no concern of yours
That would be a concern of mine because suppose you leave your stuff to your wife she remarries has more kids then divides your stuff among her kids when she passes. Then your stuff's going to somebody else's kids. That is my concern and I don't want it. That's a big reason to use a pre-nup and trusts etc. to avoid that.
You gonna pay the $4,000 dollars?
And when that pre-nup gets to the divorce attorney's desk and he's scrutinizing it for compliance with state laws and any way he can have it thrown out in court, then if he finds something legally wrong with then it's going to be a problem. He will say "OK this contract is unenforceable because it failed to comply with section such and such of the prenuptial agreements act etc etc".
You can't control the other person. You can only control yourself. The other person leaves, then what? Also what about when death does you part? There are inheritance issues. You want your labor going to your kids, at least a lot would. What I don't want is I die then my stuff goes to somebody who remarries and then gets left to somebody else's kids. Not happening. My stuff goes to my kids. A pre-nup is part of that.
What is insincere about a pre-nup?
That is one solution but there are benefits to marriage. The most significant ones are doubling of the capital gains exclusions when selling a house or the 0% gains bracket for lower income households, and for people who want a visa for their spouse if they're foreign. There is also greater social acceptance, especially if you want kids.
The problems with pre-nups have to do with their costs and questionable enforceability. Like, if the pre-nup gets thrown out and the person wouldn't have gotten married without the pre-nup, then the marriage should be annulled IMO. Yet, the situation is that a pre-nup can be entered in to in one state where it is enforceable, later the couple moves to another state and then the pre-nup isn't valid under that state's laws and then the couple gets divorced. Then the pre-nup gets thrown out in court, the marriage remains in effect, and simply where the divorce happened to take place controls the division of assets and alimony.
As far as costs they can be very expensive to draft, and not having attorney representation for both spouses can make it significantly more probable that the pre-nup will not be enforceable. It would be a lot better if, for example, on marriage license applications there could be checkbox for very common pre-nup terms including questions about alimony, inheritance rights, separate/community property, etc. This would make pre-nups a lot more affordable for a lot of couples and some reform to make them more enforceable too would be helpful.
If you divorce, then you'll have to pay alimony.
Bad, unsolicited advice.
I simply lack belief that I lack belief in God.
Here's a test to see if somebody is an atheist or an agnostic. Imagine you were on a plane that you knew was going to crash, or some other circumstance where you knew you were going to die very soon. Would you say your prayers? Would you try to make peace with god, if not out of belief in god but out of some hope you had that he was there. If you would do such a thing, then you are not fully confident that there is no god because the only reason you would do such a thing would be if you thought there some possibility that he was there, and that there was an afterlife and what have you.
The lost capacity for reproduction is similarly a problem when men die in war if the society does not tolerate polygyny. This is actually one of the most beneficial things about polygyny is its utility in addressing male to female population imbalances which result from war or regional imbalances due to economic migration. The utility of polygyny is seen in places like Syria where there is tolerance for it and many of the men are dead from the war so there arent enough husbands to go around.
The necessity for reproduction isnt really compelling in first world countries due to their ability to rely on immigration to address population declines.
TBH I think Trump is probably using the guard to troll democrats or rage bait leftists in big cities.
There are a lot of people. Different people believe different things about God. Seems reasonable to infer that some of them aren't going to believe in God, or believe that there is no god (whatever you mean by atheism) even if there's no way for an individual to prove that he's telling the truth about his personal beliefs.
I think the real problem with the work requirement is when you have an unmarried couple with children and the mom's on medicaid but the children are the husbands tax dependents then the mom won't qualify for the exclusion for somebody who has dependents unless the couple gets married because once they are married then they have the same tax return and the kids are then the mom's dependents. This is a problem for people who can't get married because they're still going through divorce proceedings or people who don't want to marry for whatever reason.
I'm not aware of any method by which the use of AI can be effectively detected except when the user copy/pastes AI content. A lot of the AI content can be discerned simply by familiarity with it, but also through AI detection tools. But these methods will fail to detect using AI in ways like, rather than copying/pasting, paraphrasing the AI's content or using the AI tools to summarize and breakdown opponents' arguments and to analyze them quickly for weaknesses, come up with opposing arguments and then paraphrasing them if the user finds them to be persuasive.
If AI gives a competitive advantage and there is no way to detect it then the honor system would have to be used. This is not good because cheaters would gain a competitive advantage and those who honorably didn't use it would be at a competitive disadvantage. The tools can be time savers but they seem to make mistakes frequently. It's like you have to guide them I guess, and verify everything they say.
Why not use the old one from DART?