No, it's not morally justified for Mackenzie Bezos to receive half the wealth in the divorce.

Atlas_B_Shruggin · 2019-01-14T03:27:40+00:00

it doesnt have to mbe morally justified, nor is it based in her contribution or any conception of "deserving"

a marriage is like a legal partnership in the eyes of the law. when you are married you each own 100% of the marital assets. when you divorce you are each apportioned 50/50 in a community property state or some other portion in an equitable distribution state. there is no moral issue here. this is about legal joint ownership of all marital assets by the MARRIAGE. the marriage is a legla union, a "corporate person" economically.

marriage is not employment. she was not the marriage's employee, she didnt own the marital assets because of her "contribution" to the marriage but because of the legal state of marriage and nothing else. again, DURING the marriage she had 100% ownership of all the marital assets, and so did he. by divorcing SHE LOSES HALF OF HER ASSETS TOO, she doesnt GAIN half of HIS assets

we can argue over whether it should be this way, and since only nine states are pure 50/50 community property states obviosuly other arrangements are possible

the moralizing of the arrangement is baseless and nuts.

reluctantly_red · 2019-01-14T02:47:40+00:00

This is a legal issue. Morality has no part of it.

toronto87 · 2019-01-14T03:08:11+00:00

The law says she's entitled to half so, idk?

If you want to bring morals into it, are either of them morally justified in having 70 billion dollars each?

passepar2t · 2019-01-14T17:30:49+00:00

You know what's morally justified? Taking all that money and giving it to Amazon's warehouse slaves.

NalkaNalka · 2019-01-14T03:10:19+00:00

OP must work at a health insurance company.

"Sure you did everything right and payed your dues on time and we signed a contract and all that but we are denying your claim because fuck you it's a lot of money".

Littleknownfacts · 2019-01-14T02:43:34+00:00

Feminists had something to say about it(as always), and apparently they are pissed off because people are questioning the fact that she could get so much money out of this divorce.

Why is this feminist? Wired is a tech brand, their viewership doesnt even lean towards women.

Of course, the thing is, Mackenzie Bezos obviously did not do more than Jeff. According to their own article, her contributions hardly amounted to anything:

Leaving her old life in New York so he could start his business

Interviewing employees, writing checks, and helping keep track of some books. This was only when the company started out, and she stopped helping as the company grew.

Yet if she did not do those things, he may not have succeeded. If she wanted to stay in NY and with what I assume was a very good career in a very good buisness he would have had a harder time distinguishing himself from the 1 million other start ups from that era. So she sacrificed her earning potential for him to succeed...

It's obvious that Jeff could have very well have become successful without her,

Bull fucking shit. Or at the very least: prove it.

rapunzelly · 2019-01-14T17:45:56+00:00

A. Neither of them should be so rich, they should actually pay their workers fairly. B. The law is the law and he knowingly chose to cheat C. So when men branch swing it's OK? Where's that righteous indignation about cheating and cucking? Why aren't TRPers angry on behalf of MacKenzie, someone who acted EXACTLY the way they say women should.

no_condoments · 2019-01-14T03:20:34+00:00

Mackenzie doesn't get any money out of the divorce. They are currently married and thus jointly own everything. When they divorce and each keep equal shares, she is keep the money that she already owns.

321PK · 2019-01-14T02:40:10+00:00

Ugh. Is this going to affect my prime delivery??? If so screw that bitch! If not, clean him out girl!! Also, why do you care?

plotter587 · 2019-01-14T02:40:48+00:00

I don't even know where to begin here...

This is common occurrence for divorce... Earning doesn't go into the equation... If it was 1 dollar or trillians it's based on law... Typically split wealth from the time of marriage on, and then discussions of alimony and child support...
They should have gotten a pre-nup if they wanted something different to happen
You only speak of business earnings or activities... We have no idea if she raised those children, took care of everything for him, stroked that ego, kept him sane day in and day out...
What could she have done or earned without him? What did she go through during that time? Does it even matter?

Basically, it will go to the courts where there is moral ambiguity, because like it or not that's what happens....

No harm, no foul...

xKalisto · 2019-01-14T04:27:33+00:00

Bezoz is not morally justified to have all that money because of his shit business practices. Amazon is not nice company.

Ya guys must not be married to someone with business. Wifes don't just ignore the husband's business. She likely offered a support structure emotional and material for him to pursue whatever. You can't build a house without pillars to stand on.

Heck I always joke about our 'bathtub conferences' where we talk ideas for whatever project husband is working on.

peterlongc · 2019-01-14T02:55:39+00:00

It's not 'morally justified' based on their 'material contributions' for either of the Bezoses to have accumulated such an indescribable quantity of wealth.

The best idea I've ever heard for how to deal with this is, in the hypothetical, is a 'richest person in the world' contest. Every year the richest person in the world gets a nice plaque and a 'congratulations!' ceremony, and then they get to give it all back and start over.

Pope_Lucious · 2019-01-14T14:45:33+00:00

Marriage is a joke. Dude played himself.

muddynips · 2019-01-14T15:19:24+00:00

The real question is why a rich man would ever get married.

blackwater23 · 2019-01-14T04:48:18+00:00

Lol at everyone in this thread saying “morality != legal rule, next question.” No one is challenging the root of the original CMV that Mackenzie should not get half of Bezos wealth.

In no world does she deserve the spoils of a company she did not build. If the closest defense to that is “that’s the law”, then this is an outrageously strong argument against marriage on all levels.

chillinbliss38 · 2019-01-14T13:32:19+00:00

If you ever started a company while mattied then you would understand why she should get half. They did it together. Ge bounced all his ideas off of her, ahe listened to him talk about it all day long and gave hee input, they laid in bed together and he talked about it. When you start a business that is the only thing on your mind, and you reach out to people for critique. To say his wife never had a say in anything is ridiculous.

JDPblade42 · 2019-01-14T05:38:57+00:00

I think its justified because that dude freaks me out. The less money the better.

buartha · 2019-01-14T15:48:30+00:00

My understanding of community property states in America (which Washington is) is that you split everything between the couple, and that includes debt. Because of that, Bezo's wife was taking all the same financial risks as he was when he decided to start Amazon; even leaving aside the personal sacrifices associated with the start of the business, had Amazon not succeeded she would likely have been a target for the various debtors that would have come knocking on the door, even if they'd divorced after. Because of that, it's perfectly reasonable for her to be partially entitled to the profits now that things have gone well.

Even if it weren't 'justified', I would be shocked if Bezos wouldn't be willing to pay whatever necessary to keep on her good side since after 20 years of marriage she'll know exactly where the skeletons are hidden, so even if she wasn't legally entitled to it she'd be making off with a big chunk anyway. All the speculation about an acrimonious split are exactly that; speculation. Chances are it will go away quietly with Bezos happy to pay whatever he needs to pay for discretion.

biasedinquirer · 2019-01-14T05:39:56+00:00

The law is there to protect spouses who sacrifice their careers to look after the children they have with their spouses.

"Half your assets" is generally not an insane amount of money. Usually it still leaves the spouse who took time out off their career worse of relative to the more career-focused spouse, because the career-focused spouse leaves with money and all their career experience.

In the extremely rare case when it is an insane amount of money, I agree it's maybe not morally justified. But I couldn't care less. Jeff has more money than any of us. Before the divorce. After the divorce. I don't know why we should be feeling sorry for him?

No one should feel like they have to stay with their partner or lose the lifestyle they're accustomed to. If your marriage was that transactional that you married your partner to leverage your superior earning potential to trap them in a marriage, you should go the whole hog and just make sure you've got a prenup all lined up.

A Red Pill truth: We will never have income inequality between heterosexual men and women, if only because of the way they each respond to having a child. The only way to balance the ledger of wealth between men and women in society is if we as society treat marriage income as the property and product of two equal partners and split it up equally among them when couples split up. I believe in merit-based employment, I think fathers will always work longer hours in their jobs and careers than mothers, and reap the benefits of their greater experience, no matter how much we force them to take equal paternity leave, and so men and women's incomes will never be equal and we shouldn't force them to be. Wealth on the other hand, I think we can say should be split 50/50 in consideration of the deep partnership a marriage represents.

_Neon_Shadow_ · 2019-01-14T11:17:57+00:00

She deserves every cent. He cheated.

LUClEN · 2019-01-14T05:56:57+00:00

He cheated, though.

whatyoucallaflip · 2019-01-14T02:42:54+00:00

The illiterate who wrote this article should never work again.

Anyway, Mackenzie is entitled to the money because that's what the law says, no less and no more. It boggles my mind how someone who works in finance could be such a lovestruck fuckhead as to not get a prenup, but since he did not negotiate one, Mackenzie would be as entitled to the money if she was strung out on heroin and being gangbanged every day as it would if she was literally the CEO, which the illiteratr who wrote the article apparently equates to "sitting in a fucking car" and "writing accounting entries".

CainPrice · 2019-01-14T12:01:19+00:00

If Amazon had failed and the married couple was left with nothing in the bank and 500 million in debt, the undeserving wife would walk away with 250 million in debt that she didn't deserve. If the undeserving wife made a trillion dollars and her husband was broke, he'd get half a trillion. Neither of those happened, but that would have been the outcome if they did.

Marriage is, very literally, a legal agreement that everything either partner earns from the date of the marriage until the date of the divorce belongs equally to both people. Regardless of who earned or deserves it.

Yeah, it's a silly agreement to make with a woman. But it's the agreement a married couple makes.

Instead of arguing that men should be able to marry women but not have to pay them off during the divorce, address the root issue. Marriage doesn't need changing. It needs replacement.

It's not a silly agreement just because wives can walk with undeserved money. It's a silly agreement because wives can walk with money for absolutely nothing in return. They don't have to have sex, work and bring in income, do housework, or be kind and respectful to their husband's. There's nothing given in return for the money sharing agreement. They may choose to do some of that, but it's not required, just optional. If we wanted to equalize things, what would we have a wife give? Some kind of sexual frequency agreement? Then discuss the sex schedule she didn't stick to in court during the divorce? Exactly. That would be stupid.

Marriage isn't broken because rich men pay a lot. It's broken because someone gets paid for absolutely nothing. Even if the payout is small, it's something for nothing. Marriage isn't fixable. It doesn't need fixing. It needs replacement.

sadomasochrist · 2019-01-14T02:41:00+00:00

It's a business agreement more or less. You're basically debating a contract law question. Marriages are essentially at their core business agreements.

You start with a company with a partnership agreement, and if it dissolves you divide it mostly by your stock ownership, even if one of you stopped coming to work and started working for another company etc.

It's sort of like the secretary at Microsoft. Should she be fuck you rich?

From a contract law question, should isn't a consideration. The consideration is percentage of ownership and current business net worth.

[deleted] · 2019-01-14T22:36:33+00:00

Correct me if I am wrong OP, but didn’t she actually work for Amazon in the very beginning and was one of their first accountants?

dmw1987 · 2019-06-04T17:25:37+00:00

hahahaha

vipni2019 · 2019-07-09T02:19:26+00:00

This is the only way women can get rich. Create laws that entitle her to money she didn’t earn. And no, being an ‘emotional support’ alone doesn’t come with a 40 billion price tag. Jeff Bezos provided emotional and financial support as well for 25 years. Where is his cheque for 40 billion?

Bosombuddies · 2019-01-14T07:44:56+00:00

If it’s true he cheated then he deserves nothing. That being said no one should have that much money in the first place, so no she doesn’t deserve 70b. He will probably lawyer his way out of it anyway

speed3_freak · 2019-01-14T04:26:42+00:00

It doesn't matter. It's not his money, it's their money. It doesn't matter who made it, and it doesn't matter how much it is. If you get married and then you make $100 and your wife makes $50, if you divorce then you both get $75 unless you signed a contract that says otherwise. If two people marry and the wife wins $50 million playing the lotto, do you think she should be able to divorce her husband and not have to give him half?

People that have the issue (rightfully so) about losing half their shit are talking about losing half of what you had before marriage. If Bezos made all that money and then they got married then you would find a lot more people agreeing with you. In this case, her getting half is legally right and morally justified. When your spouse gets a paycheck, that money isn't their money, it's our money.

AutoModerator · 2019-01-14T02:33:34+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Willow-girl · 2019-01-14T12:20:09+00:00

If you enter into a business partnership that calls for a 50/50 split and it turns out your partner is a much better businessman than you are, will you insist on taking a smaller share when it comes time to dissolve the partnership? Or will you expect to receive the full half you're entitled to under the terms of the contract?

frankcastlestein · 2019-01-14T14:13:26+00:00

She doesn't deserve jack shit, she had a job, she quit the job, she lived off her husbands income. Just because she was married to him does not automatically qualify her for compensation. If the laws in her state are 50\50 on divorce assets then she is entitled to it, but that is not equivalent to deserving it. With that being said Jeff is a massive tool and I hope she takes it all because fuck that asshole.

ifelsedowhile · 2019-01-14T13:31:35+00:00

I don't think it's morally justified but Im willing to bet Jeff Bezos has been one of the major funders of the feminist/progressive propaganda in the last years, so he made his own bed.

[deleted] · 2019-01-14T14:04:28+00:00

That’s true, but he cheated. Idk man, I feel like cheating to end a marriage constitutes different moral terms than falling out of love.

TopOccasion29 · 2019-01-14T14:13:15+00:00

Discussing morality in this legal case is pointless. As much as i hate the divorce laws in the west, she's entitled to whatever the law deems fit in this case. If we're discussing morals, then Bezos is the one at fault because he cheated with another married woman and was the one who filed for divorce himself...so he deserves all what's coming to him.

StunningLaugh · 2019-01-14T19:09:12+00:00

Yes it is, because that is what marriage the pooling of both partner's lives and thus when it is severed they should receive half each. I am the most unemotional person ever when it comes to decision making, I could watch a child in Africa die and feel nothing, but that by fact of marriage being the union of two people, when that marriage ends due to Jeff's infidelity the severance should be 50/50. You can't use the argument Jeff contributed more because they are husband and wife as opposed to employer and employee.

Title	No, it's not morally justified for Mackenzie Bezos to receive half the wealth in the divorce.
Author	CanadianAsshole1
Upvotes	78
Comments	433
Date	January 14, 2019 2:33 AM UTC (5 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/afr36j/no_its_not_morally_justified_for_mackenzie_bezos/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/no-its-not-morally-justified-for-mackenzie-bezos.257834 https://theredarchive.com/post/257834