If that's the case, I guess his wife will make an entry into the top 10 wealthiest people in the world.
I hope the loss of 50% of his net worth doesn't detract from his space faring aspirations or considerable charitable donations (although I don't remember if he is one of the immensely wealthy people who vowed to give most of it away).
Why wouldn't she be ok with less money?
Money over $10 million is just about power, you have all your needs met. She can get significantly more of course (probably few billions of dollars, why not?), but I don't think she cares about it that much.
As MacKenzie went into the background when she wasn't needed anymore (which is not true for power hungry people), she doesn't look like the power hungry person.
I see, than it's maybe $100M that's mostly enough for that.
What's important is that most of the money wouldn't get spent to buy things by Jeff or her.
Why does this insane split seem unfair even though it might be legal?
In this day and age, if 2 adults divorce and as long as there are not any special circumstances, why should one be entitled to half of another spouse's wealth?
I understand that these laws came when women had no agency and no education but surely we don't need these laws now?
If feminism were anything but self servin and geniune, why are there no calls to make divorce laws more reasonable?
What is the moral (not legal - obviously she's entitled legally) justification that simply "being there" from the beginning entitles one to half of the fruits of a person's labor?
Having got through a divorce (though in California) I don't see how this need make a huge difference to AMZN. The division of assets is not a taxable event, so no big stock sales. She could sign a voting rights agmt to vote her shares always with her ex husband's -- this could remove any "change of control" issues that would reduce the value of the company, and if they agree are going to continue as friends this would likely be no big deal.
In other words, a private matter and likely not "news" in the sense of implying some shift in the tech sector.
27 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 57.9 ms ] threadHalf of all assets gained during the marriage belong to his wife. The only way it could be less is if she agreed to take something less.
I hope the loss of 50% of his net worth doesn't detract from his space faring aspirations or considerable charitable donations (although I don't remember if he is one of the immensely wealthy people who vowed to give most of it away).
I can't see why anyone would!
I wonder if there will be some sort of a buyout offered.
In this day and age, if 2 adults divorce and as long as there are not any special circumstances, why should one be entitled to half of another spouse's wealth?
I understand that these laws came when women had no agency and no education but surely we don't need these laws now?
If feminism were anything but self servin and geniune, why are there no calls to make divorce laws more reasonable?
What if u r a billionaire, and pledged to give away half your money to charity, then get divorced, and end up with nothing?
These are very pressing issues.
But then again, maybe he’s well insulated, such that her bank heist fails, and retires into obscurity with pocket change or less.
As long as Amazon remains stable I think their agreement, while it would be interesting, is none of my business.
In other words, a private matter and likely not "news" in the sense of implying some shift in the tech sector.