Pensions Ahhhhhhh

ellies_angel

I am in a relationship with a Widower who receives a pension from his late wife. He has one dependant child. If we were to co-habit or marry he would lose this pension. My salary wouln't cover what he would lose in his pension so we had no choice but to live seperately.

I am superannuated at my work and I could put my partner down as the beneficary of my pension should I die, however if he was then to co-habit or remarry he would lose it.

What I am trying to get at is I think this system sucks. You pay into a pension for when you retire. God forbid something should happen to you, you know that your loved ones will have some financial security, however according to this system they wouldn't be allowed to go on and have a new life so what is my alternative, to put my nephew and godson down as my beneficaries so that they will get the full benefit of what I have paid into my pension

dunstonh

The type of pension you have (and your partner has) are heavily subsidised by the employer. Often these pensions are built up with little or no contribution on your part. So, whilst the rules do seem a bit old fashioned, you should have the comfort of knowing that you are still better off than had you needed to rely on personal pensions which do give you choice but cost a lot more to get the same level of benefits.

ellies_angel

I pay over £100 a month into my pension and my employer pays around the same. This was the same with his late wifes pension so although I appreciate what your saying I do pay a considerable amount every month

dunstonh

I pay over £100 a month into my pension and my employer pays around the same. This was the same with his late wifes pension so although I appreciate what your saying I do pay a considerable amount every month

With respect, you are not paying a lot. A final salary scheme is worth around 15%-20% of your income. You are paying £100 minus tax relief and NI. It doesnt matter what the employer pays as it has no direct impact on your pension. A person paying into a personal pension that does have more flexibility on income options would have to pay around £300 probably to match your benefits.

So, given the choice of flexibility at £300pm or a limited amount of inflexibility at £100pm, which do you prefer?

Not trying to justify the rules of payment but really clarify that the schemes you have make up for the small shortcomings by being excellent value.

dobefan

Any pension is a risky investment at this time! I fear that many companies won't be around to pay out ... and what sort of returns are going to be paid by those that remain?

:eek:

dunstonh

dobefan wrote: »

Any pension is a risky investment at this time! I fear that many companies won't be around to pay out ... and what sort of returns are going to be paid by those that remain?

:eek:

Why is a pension a risky investment? That is like saying a Tupperware tub contains out of date food without knowing what is in the tub and when it was put in it. It may not even have food in it.

Would you like to explain why you feel that way and what "at this time" actually means?

EdInvestor

dunstonh wrote: »

So, whilst the rules do seem a bit old fashioned.

They also apply (at least up till very recently) to Government pensions such as the NHS scheme. It encourages dishonesty, I agree. These kinds of pensions also penalise single people, who are forced to pay for spouse and dependants' benefits that they never use.

Dependant spouses are now a comparative rarity as most people work so there ought to be an option to choose a single person's pension IMHO, then each partner can build up their own entitlement at a fair cost.

jack_spratt_2

Dependant spouses are now a comparative rarity as most people work so there ought to be an option to choose a single person's pension IMHO, then each partner can build up their own entitlement at a fair cost.

What a load of tosh !!

In the real world many dependant spouses are working for the minimum wage of £5-73 per hour as well as trying to bring up a family or look after the elderly parents and make ends meet

The inclusion of a spouse's pension is in my opinion the corner stone of any half decent company pension scheme

Jennifer_Jane

jack_spratt wrote: »

What a load of tosh !!

In the real world many dependant spouses are working for the minimum wage of £5-73 per hour as well as trying to bring up a family or look after the elderly parents and make ends meet

The inclusion of a spouse's pension is in my opinion the corner stone of any half decent company pension scheme

Why exactly should single people (ie single at point of pension) be losing part of their pension for some non-existent spouse? I would love to have this explained because I can't think of a reason.

Jen

margaretclare

jack_spratt wrote: »

What a load of tosh !!

In the real world many dependant spouses are working for the minimum wage of £5-73 per hour as well as trying to bring up a family or look after the elderly parents and make ends meet

The inclusion of a spouse's pension is in my opinion the corner stone of any half decent company pension scheme

What insulting nonsense!

I am a spouse but I resent the imputation that I am dependent. My spouse and I each have our own pensions and neither of us is 'dependent' on the other. Perish the thought.

dunstonh

Why exactly should single people (ie single at point of pension) be losing part of their pension for some non-existent spouse?

That is the age old argument. Why should men pay for women (as women live longer), why should those with dependent children get more, why should those with spouses get more.....

The whole benefits package is cross subsidised and a single person living 30 years is going to get more than a married person living 15 and the spouse a further 20 years. There are always winners and losers.