Your Advice Please

MrChips

EdInvestor wrote: »

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.

I'm not an expert on civil service/local govt pensions but I think single people receive some sort of contribution refund at retirement in lieu of the spouse's pension entitlement. This certainly used to be the case.

Andy_L

stickman wrote: »

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.

If you're not married then they don't have to pay your partner that pension so that saves them money.

TBH you can get youself down to the registry office on a wet Wednesday afternoon with a couple of witnesses & get married for ~£75 which gives you a whole load of other benefits as well (eg Inheritance tax, capital gains tax, legal next-of-kin status)

stickman

Andy_L wrote: »

If you're not married then they don't have to pay your partner that pension so that saves them money.

TBH you can get youself down to the registry office on a wet Wednesday afternoon with a couple of witnesses & get married for ~£75 which gives you a whole load of other benefits as well (eg Inheritance tax, capital gains tax, legal next-of-kin status)

I agree they don't have to pay partners and that way they save money and yes I could go to reg office and get "married" but that is my point.
Why should I?
In this day and age living with a partner is acceptable as being married. So imo anyone should be able to nominate who they want as a beneficiary. The current pension rules don't take this into consideration as they are from a bygone era and are archaic.
In today's society one should'nt have to be "married" to be afforded similar benefits of married couples.

cyclonebri1

I thought all pensions operated through an "expression of wish" form, ie YOU decide who gets the remainder of you pension after D day, married or not, provided they were a partner. Seems I'm wrong:cool:

EdInvestor

Private pensions operate on the basis of 'nominated beneficiaries', where the trustees distribute the money according to your wishes (unless you have done something like give your money to your mistress or the cats home when you have a spouse and 4 children to support.)

Not the same with occupational schemes, however.

redpete

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

I thought all pensions operated through an "expression of wish" form, ie YOU decide who gets the remainder of you pension after D day, married or not, provided they were a partner. Seems I'm wrong:cool:

In most cases I think the Expression of Wish form says who should get any lump sum payable on death, nothing about widows/widowers pension.

dunstonh

protected rights dont get paid out as a lump sum (apart from a few scenarios). They are paid out as widows/dependants pension.

Ordinary/non protected rights is paid out as a lump sum. Although you can often choose to have it paid as an income.

stickman

EdInvestor wrote: »

Private pensions operate on the basis of 'nominated beneficiaries', where the trustees distribute the money according to your wishes (unless you have done something like give your money to your mistress or the cats home when you have a spouse and 4 children to support.)

Not the same with occupational schemes, however.

Thanks for that, exactly what I mean. Private schemes you can leave pension to whoever you wish. Occupational pensions a BIG NO NO. Question is why??? Come into the real world and let those of us in occupational pensions leave them to "whoever we want" just like the private sector.

Thanks again