Your Advice Please

stickman

OK, I am in final salary Govmt scheme. Got divorced in 1996, kept all my pension intact. Got back with ex wife in 2000 and have been together since. At present should I die after retirement my pension dies with me as I can't pass it on to kids. However if I remarry (ex wife) then she will get widowers pension, which, really is what I want. Gripe is why should I have to get married in order for ex to get pension when same sex partners have same rights as a married couple. Why can't "partners" from the opposite sex be afforded similar rights. I believe that MP's have this right.

Thanks

yelf

"same sex" rules generally were brought in around 2006 to pensions - so any one who was a memver before then can only pass benefits to a spouse

Andy_L

In the Civil Service schemes (and possibly other Public Sector schemes)same sex partners have to have a civil partnership (ie be effectively "married") to receive a survivors pension.

ISTR there was a brief period in between anti-discrimination legislation & the introduction of civil partnerships where same-sex couples just had to demonstrate a "comitted relationship" to get a survivors pension which, as you say, gave them an advantage over straight couples but that anomoly has now been closed

stickman

yelf wrote: »

"same sex" rules generally were brought in around 2006 to pensions - so any one who was a memver before then can only pass benefits to a spouse

Exactly my point. Why do you have to be "married" to pass pension benefits on??? Why can't I leave it to my "partner" as opposed to having to "marry" that partner in order for pension to be passed on. MP's don't, they can live with their partners and still pass their pension on to that partner.

MrChips

A spouse's pension is potentially quite an expensive benefit for your scheme to provide. To ensure it is only paid out to dependants who are truly committed to a long term relationship, it is often limited to married couples only.

Different schemes have different rules about all sort of aspects. I guess if you are worried your partner will not be entitled to a pension in the event of your death, your only option is to remarry.

Qualcuno

stickman wrote: »

Exactly my point. Why do you have to be "married" to pass pension benefits on??? Why can't I leave it to my "partner" as opposed to having to "marry" that partner in order for pension to be passed on. MP's don't, they can live with their partners and still pass their pension on to that partner.

Because that's what you agreed to when you started working for the government, and that's what you paid for. They can't change the rules retrospectively because the cost would be extreme. At least they've changed the rules for new joiners and future service in most cases, showing that they agree with you but they just can't afford to give out far more than they've already promised you and your coworkers (which many would argue was generous to begin with).

stickman

MrChips wrote: »

A spouse's pension is potentially quite an expensive benefit for your scheme to provide. To ensure it is only paid out to dependants who are truly committed to a long term relationship, it is often limited to married couples only.

Different schemes have different rules about all sort of aspects. I guess if you are worried your partner will not be entitled to a pension in the event of your death, your only option is to remarry.

Agreed mate, will have to remarry so she will get pension. The funny thing is, I could marry a woman the same age as my kids or even younger, so in effect the scheme would be paying out much longer than if they let me leave to either my partner(same age) or kids. Crazy!!!

CAE

You say you are in Govt scheme. Do you mean the Local Government Pension Scheme? Since 1st April 2008 you have been able to nominate a cohabiting partner to receive pension benefits in the event of your death. There are various conditions that must be satisfied, including the fact that you must be free to marry, must be living together as husband and wife, be financially interdependent and must have satisfied these conditions for at least two years. You should ask for a form to complete to nominate your partner.

MrChips

stickman wrote: »

Agreed mate, will have to remarry so she will get pension. The funny thing is, I could marry a woman the same age as my kids or even younger, so in effect the scheme would be paying out much longer than if they let me leave to either my partner(same age) or kids. Crazy!!!

Most schemes (although not sure if this includes yours) reduce pensions payable to spouses who are more than 10 years younger then the deceased member to avoid this problem.

stickman

Qualcuno wrote: »

Because that's what you agreed to when you started working for the government, and that's what you paid for. They can't change the rules retrospectively because the cost would be extreme. At least they've changed the rules for new joiners and future service in most cases, showing that they agree with you but they just can't afford to give out far more than they've already promised you and your coworkers (which many would argue was generous to begin with).

Maybe its me, but cant see how it would cost more.
If I've paid up my pension, retire, then say die 5 yrs later,the scheme will pay my "spouse" if I was "married" so why not a partner,its costing them no more or less. Except the fact that one was "married" and the other not. The way they save is by the person "not "being married whereby the pension dies with him / her. Basically what they are saying is we will pay a penssion to your nominee so long as you are "married, If not it dies with you,which IMO discriminates against straight couples in a partnership.

EdInvestor

The current rules also discriminate against single people who are charged for benefits they never receive.IMHO everyone should be entitled to nomiate a pension beneficiary - or if they are not married, should be given a higher 'singles' pension at retirement to reflect these additional benefits they have paid for but won't take up.