Douglas-David has filed court papers showing she has more than $US53,800 ($A79,024.68) in weekly expenses, which include maintaining a Park Avenue apartment and three residences in Sweden. Her weekly expenses also include $US700 ($A1,028.2) for limousine service, $US4,500 ($A6,609.87) for clothes, $US1,000 ($A1,468.86) for hair and skin treatments, $US1,500 ($A2,203.29) for restaurants and entertainment, and $US8,000 ($A11,750.88) for travel.
I would love her to see how people living on the breadline make do with slightly less than that.
I’ve never understood this whole idea of “maintaining your lifestyle” or whatever it’s called. You were able to survive just fine before you married rich, I’m sure you can do it again.
If he is or was a CEO, he pretty much can name his own salary and bonuses. That’s what all the outrage was about with stories of “top men” competing with each other who had the bigger [del]pen[/del]bonus, right? It seems to me that if her husband has enough money to get such a trophy wife, and the divorce negotiations are about such numbers, he also has succeded in getting more money than he can find a sensible use for.
I could understand the need to fund a transition period involving breaking out of leases, ending memberships, and quitting expensive habits that were part of the marriage, but otherwise, no.
If she’s unable to adapt to a normal first-world lifestyle like I have on less than 1/500th the annual income, and even that’s way more than lots of people in the world get by quite happily on, then she’s weak and a prisoner of her desire for wealth.
At the very least, I don’t think she should get a cent more than that $43 million. The first rule of contracts is that you don’t break the fucking contract as soon as you think you can do better, and I know of no reason why a postnuptual agreement should be any different.
I have very clearly gone about this entire “life” thing all wrong. What on earth made me think it was a good idea to make my own money, with the notion that it would be the only money I’d ever be entitled to?
Forget about the absurd sums - we are mere mortals and don’t have any sense of those kinds of amounts. For these people - that’s the world they live in. It’s the same as hearing about someone in an African village who lives on one dollar a month, we just don’t have the perspective.
To me this falls into the same category as highly paid sports figures going on strike. The money is there, they are just trying to get their share of the pie. This women in just trying to get her share of a very big pie. Let’s say she has worked out the she deserves 10% (WAG) of the pie. Now, the pie is so large that 10% works out to $43 million, good for her! The real debate should be focused on the % figure.
That’s just insane. I could live the rest of my life very comfortably on $43 million, and probably have some left over to pass on to my family when i die.
I don’t think y’all realize just how much it costs to have a virtuoso musician follow her wherever she goes continuously playing plaintive melodies on the world’s smallest Stradivarius violin.
Me too. This is how I figure it- with conservative investment, let’s say I make 5% interest on my $43 million each year- that’s just over $2 million per year. If I can live on 1% of that interest, that’s $400,000 per year, which will do me just fine.
So in principle, that original $43 million won’t ever be touched, and I’ll be adding to it every year with the 4% interest I won’t spend. I think my children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will be provided for adequately.
His income is not the issue. Just think of the limo driver, the hair salon, the couture clothing retailer, her travel agents…all those poor working stiffs would suffer if suddenly all the rich people disappeared in a puff of smoke.
She can demand all she wants. Whether or not she gets it is another matter.
