pensions in marriage when one partner does not want to save

jetta_wales

marklv wrote: »

Oh dear! Dreams, dreams. I wish people wouldn't go into marriages expecting the earth. I love my wife and she loves me, but we both married in our mid 30s and at a time when we had diplomas from the 'school of hard knocks'. Life is about reality, not romantic dreams, and marriage shouldn't be based on unrealistic expectations. We don't have children and are now really too old for this to happen, but we don't think about what might have been etc. What's the point?

My impression is that, unless there are children involved, you can divorce amicably by leaving with what you put in. In other words, split each other's finances according to what each partner contributed. In the case of my wife and I we have separate bank accounts and separate pension schemes from different employers, so the only thing to split would be the house.

Is it not a little sad to feel the need to rubbish somebody eldest dreams just because you never reached yours? As far as hard knocks go yes certainly been there (though I'd say that term's a big understament. But there's nothing at all wrong with having a little ambition for life. My ex had none and it just turned out that we were a lot more different than we first thought plus I wasn't in the best place going into it anyway so didn't marry for the right reasons reasons really.

Now with two daughters I've completely started again now and my partner is just as full as life as me so why on earth will we not achieve what we want to in life? Whoare you to say "oh dear" about my life?

My Mum was a hairdresser and my Dad a sparky but they retired with half a million to play with because they had dreams and worked bloody hard to reach them.

ninky_2

the divorce laws are pretty unfair in this country imho. historically men got taken to the cleaners - at least that reflected the reality that generally the women had given up their lives to have children and look after the house - but now that half of all women in relationships earn as much or more than their partners it could work either way.

do you have a relative that you completely trust (such as a parent) that you could 'gift' money to. effectively holding it for you until you trust your marriage more? unfortunately this won't give you the tax benefits of a pension scheme but it's better than losing it to a hapless ex-spouse.

chesky369

......this won't give you the tax benefits of a pension scheme ......

but it WILL give the recipient a major tax headache!

ninky_2

chesky369 wrote: »

......this won't give you the tax benefits of a pension scheme ......

but it WILL give the recipient a major tax headache!

gifts from relatives aren't taxable unless you die within 7 years afaik...

jetta_wales

ninky wrote: »

gifts from relatives aren't taxable unless you die within 7 years afaik...

It's a valid theory since there is not going to be a simple straight forward answere to this one. Unless of course he would sign away his rights to it in some way but like I said that would be real tricky conversation to have with him.

lemma1968

jetta_wales wrote: »

It's a valid theory since there is not going to be a simple straight forward answere to this one. Unless of course he would sign away his rights to it in some way but like I said that would be real tricky conversation to have with him.

And would not necessarily be legally binding either. Pre-nups can be ignored in court so i think a post nup could be as well probably.

marklv

jetta_wales wrote: »

Is it not a little sad to feel the need to rubbish somebody eldest dreams just because you never reached yours? As far as hard knocks go yes certainly been there (though I'd say that term's a big understament. But there's nothing at all wrong with having a little ambition for life. My ex had none and it just turned out that we were a lot more different than we first thought plus I wasn't in the best place going into it anyway so didn't marry for the right reasons reasons really.

Now with two daughters I've completely started again now and my partner is just as full as life as me so why on earth will we not achieve what we want to in life? Whoare you to say "oh dear" about my life?

My Mum was a hairdresser and my Dad a sparky but they retired with half a million to play with because they had dreams and worked bloody hard to reach them.

I didn't mean to directly criticise you, and without knowing your exact situation I cannot possibly make an informed comment, but the principle of marriage is 'for richer and for poorer, in sickness and in health' - whatever happened to that? Marriage is something to be taken seriously, and the divorce rate would be a lot lower if more people considered it as such. And it's fine to have dreams as long as you have the possibility of achieving them; otherwise dreams is all they will remain.

marklv

ninky wrote: »

the divorce laws are pretty unfair in this country imho. historically men got taken to the cleaners - at least that reflected the reality that generally the women had given up their lives to have children and look after the house - but now that half of all women in relationships earn as much or more than their partners it could work either way.

do you have a relative that you completely trust (such as a parent) that you could 'gift' money to. effectively holding it for you until you trust your marriage more? unfortunately this won't give you the tax benefits of a pension scheme but it's better than losing it to a hapless ex-spouse.

This is why the best solution for a man is always to marry a richer woman. :rotfl:

marklv

lemma1968 wrote: »

The law on divorce and pension sharing is evolving all the time. Its a complicated topic with no right answer to put forward. If you are in any doubt about your position, see a solicitor who specialises in family law for advice (in the area of ancillary relief).

I hope this may answer some of your questions.

www.pensionsadvisoryservice.org.uk/pension_rights/divorce

Interesting. And what if both partner marry again? Will the pensions of the new partners be taken into consideration?

It's a bad law in my view. Unless you have a situation where only one partner has earned a substantial pension and the other either works part-time or not at all, then it's hugely unfair on the partner with the bigger pension pot. Why penalise someone because they have a more successful career?

jetta_wales

marklv wrote: »

I didn't mean to directly criticise you, and without knowing your exact situation I cannot possibly make an informed comment, but the principle of marriage is 'for richer and for poorer, in sickness and in health' - whatever happened to that? Marriage is something to be taken seriously, and the divorce rate would be a lot lower if more people considered it as such. And it's fine to have dreams as long as you have the possibility of achieving them; otherwise dreams is all they will remain.

Yes richer or poorer certainly but I did not sign up for him to become completely addicted and obssesed with Final fantasy XI on-line and despite many attempts to change this, him still wanting to spend every waking hour on it lol.

Yes they're definatly achievable we just want a nice big house with enough land for the kids, one day grand kids and lots of tiny Papilons to run free in :-)

I definatly got married for the wrong reasons, hard knocks as you said meant i grew up too fast but it's all good now and while I have been in the position of being in a relationship i deep down knew wouldn't ever be right I now know the difference and would never see being a relatioship but still having contingency plans as the right kind of relationship to be in.

Wow I used the word 'relationship' way too many times then, it doesn't even sound like a word any more lol.

I don't know too much about divorce law we just split things 50/50, he'd earnt the wages sure but we decided together that we both wanted me to be a full time Mum once we had children so I think that was fair.

My solicitor said that they would usualy go for than 50% since I would be the main carer for the kids but I had no interest in that 50/50 was fair in my eyes, even if I could have got more it doesn't mean I should have.

CSA's all wrong too in my opinion I apparently should be taking 2.5 times more from him each month than I do. Dad's with mean ex-wifes must be up the creak without a paddle.