Why should husband and wife/wives own property jointly?

[Sees]

Sure, but it is in vogue in many parts of the world and if we include those who believe Torah/OT (the Jews and Christians) then most of the world.
And those who don't believe in any religion, and are free to have a sort of marriage with many of the opposite sex, they are not just to their partners as they don't share any immovable property with their partners. In this sense the whole world is of polygamous culture rather than to belong to monogamous culture . Please correct me if I am wrong?
Regards

I'm not sure what you mean.

 

[Curious George]

Joint ownership is useful for real estate....
- Both have authority do do things, eg, turn on/off utilities
- Simple & tax free rights of survivorship

Utilities are property rights not necessarily tied to ownership.

 

[paarsurrey]

And I see this "up to four wives" rule as solid evidence that Islam is from a 7th century Arabic warlord.
Not from God at all.
Tom

Well, that is not the discussion here. The topic of discussion is "Why should husband and wife/wives own property jointly?". Please.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

I'm not sure what you mean.

The Western society for secular objects legally favors joint ownership of property with the spouse, but then have relationships culturally with others that is sort of or in other sense being polygamous and doing injustice to the relationship they have out of wedlock.
Hope it helps?
Regards

 

[psychoslice]

We lose our independence in the institution called marriage, or what I call, prison lol.

 

[paarsurrey]

While I have no inherent problem with polyamory* I do think that if one is to be in a relationship where they want more than one partner that the partner/s they already have should be equally as interested in such a relationship. Also, everything should be split equally between all of them in that case.

* It has been described as "consensual, ethical, and responsible non-monogamy",[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory
Yet it is in another sense polygamy. Isn't it flouting the rule/law or convention?
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

What if a wife has multiple husbands?

What is Western society's rule/law/convention in this connection? Please
Or the societies who practice "wife has multiple husbands", adherents of such societies, if any here, should reflect on it, if they may. Please
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

The 'crime' is its own punishment.

Crime in what sense? Please
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

I thought it was rather clear that I was comparing the notion of a society where nothing is owned and everything is shared to an insect colony. I don't see how the point could be lost on anyone.

Do you mean communism? Please
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

What commentary does that add though?

An intelligent point.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

The reason is that if a wife chooses to stay at home and raise children, giving up progressing her career, the government has an interest in protecting the wife financially, should the husband be violent, adulterous, run away with another girl or just a deadbeat in general.

I don't think it is a sufficient rationale that covers all the aspects of wedlock. Right?
Please see some aspects in Post#45.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Err...I'm not really sure THAT is how I would put it.
Anywhooos...my take is that marriage is a commitment for life. I understand that people and circumstances change, and therefore divorce happens, etc, but the reason things are owned jointly is that you have joined your life. It's obviously going to be a little tricky to 'unjoin', but then again, no-one forced you to get married. And any difficulty working out who gets the car is going to pale into insignificance when you end up dealing with young 'uns. Who owns them?

Good points.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Hmm, I am not completely familiar with separate properties of the east. Ownership usually only matters with respect to husbands and wives when there is a dissolution, death, or tax ramifications.

While I would suggest that the regard for gender is affected by how that society treats genders differently (and ownership certainly falls into that category), I am not sure that it is greatly significant until there is a death, dissolution, or taxes.

If you are asking about the presumption that what a party adds to the estate is presumed equally owned, then I would suggest this is just a presumption and that it is a fair one.

I agree with your post except what I have colored in magenta.
For all practical purposes while husband and wife are living together happily, they enjoy everything they both have. Why shouldn't they own immovable properties separately? Why it is not equally fair? That rationale in clear and unambiguous terms should be told. Right? Please
Regards
P.S. Contents of Post#55 should be kept in mind.

 

[paarsurrey]

IF...meaning, IF you choose to legally marry someone, then joint property is most likely 'assumed.' Don't get married if you don't wanna share

Would one please quote from OT/Torah or NT to prove one's Christian point of view? Please
Regards

 

[Jumi]

I have only one wife but you know :
1.6 billion
There are about 1.6 billion Muslims, or 23% of the world’s population, making Islam the second-largest religion.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ulation-more-widespread-than-you-might-think/

In my country it is the law to only have one spouse. Having multiple spouses is not something I have sympathy for, though I know some knowingly break the law in my country.

 

[paarsurrey]

A marriage is a partnership. Why wouldn't partners have joint ownership of major assets? The house a couple lives in is just as much one spouse's as the other's. Isn't it? And if not, why not? By saying that one spouse owns all or even more of the jointly used property is to lessen the other ones worth. It makes one spouse dependent upon another. Reliant. In many cases this is to a detriment. Death, adultery, mental incapacity, numerous things can arise that leave the non-property holding spouse without.

A marriage is a partnership. Why wouldn't partners have separate ownership of major assets? The house a couple lives in is just as much one spouse's as the other's, as long as they are loving and living happily. Isn't it? And if not, why not? By saying that one spouse owns all or even more of the jointly used property does not lessen the other ones worth, if before marriage, they had also the same position. It makes one spouse dependent upon another. Reliant. In many cases this is to a detriment. Death, adultery, mental incapacity, numerous things can arise that leave the non-property holding spouse without, as does happen, in nature, naturally. Why interfere with nature?

Please describe the rationale; why should one lean to the former rather than the latter?
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

In my country it is the law to only have one spouse. Having multiple spouses is not something I have sympathy for, though I know some knowingly break the law in my country.

Which country do you live in?
We are discussing the global society here, though.
The world is like a village now.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

I just said. Equally. Let's say a couple decides, together, that they would like one more person to enter into their relationship as another partner. This now makes 3 in the relationship and all three have an equal (that is ¹/3) share of the property.

Did they have equal property wealth before entering into the relationship?
While they live together lovingly and happily they do enjoy the property irrespective to whom it belongs.
Why shouldn't they have the same ratio of property as did they have "before entering into the relationship", if the marriage breaks or in case of death of any one of them? Why should one suffer for others?
The rationale, please.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Once you're married legally, those laws go into effect in the US over and above anyone's religious ones. So if in Sharia Law, it states 'x'...in the US it states 'y,' and 'y' holds. Because the US is governed by secular law, not religion. As it should be. I'm Christian, but the Bible doesn't govern how marital affairs are handled if two people are legally married and/or getting a divorce.

Isn't it an anomaly? It is against Catholicism?
The rationale? Please
Regards

 

[Curious George]

I agree with your post except what I have colored in magenta.
For all practical purposes while husband and wife are living together happily, they enjoy everything they both have. Why shouldn't they own immovable properties separately? Why it is not equally fair? That rationale in clear and unambiguous terms should be told. Right? Please
Regards
P.S. Contents of Post#55 should be kept in mind.

Immovable properties? I am assuming you are discussing real estate? Or are you talking about intangible property such as a business or stocks?

Let's deal with real estate first. Imagine you own a house. That house has a value. You can increase the value of that house with work and maintenance. If you do not do this, the house will deteriorate in value. This extra investment is just as much of an investment as the original purchase money. Now imagine you do not have a house, but you marry a woman with a house. You make improvements and maintain the house for 20 years, the idea that you get no return on your investment while she gets a return on her original investment and your investment over 20 years, is not fair.

But the scenario I was originally discussing is even easier. Imagine you marry a woman who makes x dollars a month. You make z dollars every month. You quickly realize that you two can both live off z dollars a month, and put x dollars a month towards a mortgage. Now fast forward 20 years. Now you have invested 20 years worth of maintenance and upgrades, supporting both of you with your salary has enabled you two to purchase a house with her salary. Should she get all of the return? No. But for your salary, she would not have been able to purchase the house. So it is very much your investment as well.

Businesses are quite the same. Spouses invest time and support in their partners business that but for that investment the business would not be as successful. They should get a return on their investment.

Why do you disagree that it is fair to presume such an investment occurs?