Pensions /Married or Singles Allowance?

kidmugsy

margaretclare wrote: »

the 'man I met in a pub', who told me categorically that...

My rules for recognising when the Man in the Pub is talking rubbish. He says

(1) I know for a fact that ...
(2) It stands to reason that ..
(3) It's a matter of principle ...
(4) To be honest ...

RichandJ

2nd apology in a day if I offended anyone by post above.

I do get very annoyed sometimes. Don't need anger management help though, I can manage to get very angry all by myself. Being able to post from a phone isn't always a good thing.

margaretclare

Well, you didn't offend me. It takes more than that to offend me, been around too long, seen too much.

atush

Richard, I was going to post you are cranky again- have you had a pint?

I must admit, got a giggle off your cranky.

RichandJ

atush wrote: »

Richard, I was going to post you are cranky again- have you had a pint?

I must admit, got a giggle off your cranky.

Been to work today (I'm supposed to be a 9/5 Mon-Fri person) to start putting right what a recent (yesterday) unlamented leaver got wrong. Seems to be my job.

So yes, cranky, irritated, annoyed, angry. Oh & a pint as well.

ozzage

FatherAbraham wrote: »

It's a bit like this:

• If you marry, then you're making a public declaration that "this relationship is special"
• If you don't marry, then you're making an implicit declaration that "this relationship is not to be publicly recognized; it is an entirely private affair"

Consequently, and logically, the state (in this case) will keep its nose out of your private relationship (indeed, it doesn't really know about your relationship, in any official capacity), and not permit one of you to get a pension based on the National-Insurance contributions of the other.

This is, presumably, logical and consistent with what you were trying to achieve by not making a public declaration of the specialness of your relationship.

Warmest regards,
FA

What a load of !!!!!!!!! While the conclusion of what the government does may be correct, how can you say what anybody is trying to achieve by marrying or not, or even guess what it represents to them! Honestly sometimes I think half the people on here still live in the 18th century regarding this topic.

atush

I think FA is entirely correct. If for whatever reason you choose not to marry, you don't then get to have any perks of marriage.

Final

jamesd

irri_tant wrote: »

We've lived together but not married, since 1986. ... Would we get the married couples pension or would it be a single pension for each of us?

You're not married so neither of you will receive any of the things that would come with marriage or civil partnership. There is no such thing as a common law marriage when it comes to rights and protections.

A married person can receive a state pension based on 60% of the state pension entitlement of the person they are married to, or their own instead if they prefer, which they would if it was higher. Civil partners probably receive the same but I haven't specifically confirmed this. Two individuals who are not married, regardless of their residence or time at the same or similar residence and/or the presence of children from some sort of relationship, do not have any such entitlement.

If any of the thinking of either of you is based on a mistaken belief that you have any of the things that come with marriage or civil partnership you should get rid of that notion as rapidly as possible:

1. Any property not specifically registered differently will be owned by the person who made the payments, or if both, in proportion to the payments made.
2. Neither will inherit from the other unless a will exists and says so. A person not married or in civil partnership won't get any right to a transfer of a drawdown pension pot into a pension pot of their own without 55% tax deduction because there is no spouse. Workplace defined benefits pensions are likely to have spousal benefits that don't pay out to anyone other than a spouse or civil partner. Same may apply to some other workplace benefits.
3. There will be no transferring of nil rate band for inheritance tax because there is no relationship to enable this, it only applies to married couples or civil partners.
4. No ability to transfer assets tax free because this is only a property of tax law for married or civil partners.
5. Quite likely significant difficulty in trying to give instructions for medical care of the other based on the lack of any legal relationship.
6. Of course no maintenance on divorce or separation because there is no legal relationship ending, just two people who choose to change from living together to living apart and remain wholly responsible for their own incomes and expenses.
7. Any biological children that are provably the offspring of both would have normal inheritance rights and if minors a right to child maintenance money. Any other children probably have no rights of any sort, because presumptions of parenthood (say after unknown infidelity) I think are only a property of marriage or civil partnership. if you didn't know it, even an illegitimate child would be treated as a child of the partnership if there was marriage or I think civil partnership, because it is presumed that such a child is a product of the marriage even if this is biologically not true. You should verify anything in this paragraph that may matter to you. I'm not greatly familiar with this area and may have made a mistake in a significant detail.

ozzage wrote: »

While the conclusion of what the government does may be correct, how can you say what anybody is trying to achieve by marrying or not, or even guess what it represents to them! Honestly sometimes I think half the people on here still live in the 18th century regarding this topic.

It says nothing about what people are trying to achieve but it does say what they actually have achieved in law. In this specific case that they have achieved a complete lack of any automatic rights to pension, property or anything else owned by the other party. And that is a highly desirable outcome for many and a very sound reason why public policy in this should be as it currently is, so someone doesn't accidentally get more legally entangled than they want to be.

Married and civil partnership relationships are special and treated in a large number of ways that simply do not apply at all to those not in relationships covered by those pieces of law.

BobQ

kidmugsy wrote: »

My rules for recognising when the Man in the Pub is talking rubbish. He says

(1) I know for a fact that ...
(2) It stands to reason that ..
(3) It's a matter of principle ...
(4) To be honest ...

or "I'm a bit of an expert on this......"

BobQ

jamesd wrote: »

You're not married to neither of you will receive any of the things that would come with marriage or civil partnership...........................................................

OP some very important observations for you and your partner to consider. At the very least you should each make a will unless you are content to rely on intestacy rules achieving what you want.

I know a couple who had a similar approach to yours. After 18 years living together, three children, they started to ponder these things, went on holiday, got married in Las Vegas and never told a sole for a further 10 years when they invited their friends and family to their anniversary party.