No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

Re:No Thank You, Mr. Pecker by busterarm on Thursday February 07, 2019 @11:39PM (#19111571)

And yet spousal support after a divorce isn't in the form of "yes, you should take the extremely risky move of living without my billions of dollars. I support your doing this."

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:No Thank You, Mr. Pecker by toomuchtodo on Thursday February 07, 2019 @11:40PM (#19111578)

Such are the perils of a billionaire's marriage dissolving in a community property state. Marriage and living in Washington state are voluntary actions. My argument was for more value of a partner's contributions to business success, regardless of statute.

EDIT: @busterarm: We're not going to agree on what defines "earned", good chat.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:No Thank You, Mr. Pecker by busterarm on Thursday February 07, 2019 @11:42PM (#19111590)

Yes, but then regulatory hazard isn't the same thing as earning the money. It's just being entitled to it.

Edit: I'm pretty sure Amazon shareholders won't agree with you about the definition of "earned" either. It's not just cash at stake here, it's voting power. Is that spousal support worth 8.5% control of the company? Up from 0%.

I'm not saying she isn't entitled to it, just that there's a difference between value through entitlement and value through work.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:No Thank You, Mr. Pecker by rtx on Friday February 08, 2019 @01:00AM (#19111920)

It's not 8.5% from 0%. Its 8.5% from 16%.

[ Parent | on HN ]