Getting your paws on your OHs pension/retirement plan after divorce

JustAnotherSaver

It'll be pretty obvious which thread has sparked this wonderment in my mind, but all the same, it made me think....

Maybe i'm looking at the smaller picture here, but isn't this sort of thing just plain wrong? I'm not asking is it legal or can it be done, because clearly it happens, but just because something is legal surely doesn't make it 'right'?

Half a bank account, or half a savings account i can understand, but half someones pension? Really? Why should the other person have any entitlement?

Hopefully my wife & I will never get to the stage of divorce, but putting that aside & the fact i pay into a S&S ISA for my retirement plan & not a pension, let's assume for arguments sake i pay into a pension...

So my wages come from the job that I (& not my OH) work hard doing & go direct into MY pension.
The same would apply for OH with hers.

Then comes a bitter (or not necessarily so) divorce & all of a sudden i get dibs on hers & she gets dibs on mine, when neither of us have worked for or contributed to the other?


All seems very wrong to me.

So i'm curious - why isn't this as wrong as i think it is?

atush

Because it is an asset. Presumably (in your case at least) gained/earned towards during the marriage. With community funds.

just like the house, the bank accts etc.

The trade off is, during a marriage you can pool assts, swap who has what to ay the least tax, put the most into the Best pension over a crap one etc. Marriage is a contract with legal and tax advantages. And duties thereof.

[Deleted User]

The ultimate point and reason assets are split:

Most people marry and become a single unit, they are individual people with their own lives (jobs, friends, goals, hobbies) but they function as a single unit when making big decisions about savings, employment, expenditures and property. The big decisions that affect the future are all thought of as "We earn £x", not "I earn £x and you earn £y"...

Every decision made in a marriage impacts both people, your wife could be opting to take a bigger percentage of the bills to allow you to contribute more to your pension (for example if your employer has a very high match so it makes much more financial sense to contribute as much as possible) or maybe she has chosen to stay at home with the children to allow you to work more and get a promotion which in turn increases the value of your pension through higher contributions...

Marriages affect both people in every possible way, when marrying someone you commit to be with them for the rest of their life so it's expected that everything that you do from that point on will be something that they share in. If your wife makes sacrifices that allow your pension contributions to double (through a salary increase, or by taking on more bills) and then you divorce, she would lose out.

There are situations where it can be unfair but on the whole it's very much right that everything is split. If you're not happy with it... prenup!

Pollycat

Also something else to consider:
if a couple start a family, that couple may make a joint decision for one person to stay at home to look after the children.

That person is then disadvantaged from building up their pension, whilst the person working continues to pay into their own pension.

Ask yourself if it is fair that, in the event of a divorce, the stay-at-home parent doesn't get a share in the ex's pension.

Doesn't seem very wrong to me.

JustKeepSwimming_2

Pollycat wrote: »

Also something else to consider:
if a couple start a family, that couple may make a joint decision for one person to stay at home to look after the children.

That person is then disadvantaged from building up their pension, whilst the person working continues to pay into their own pension.

Ask yourself if it is fair that, in the event of a divorce, the stay-at-home parent doesn't get a share in the ex's pension.

Doesn't seem very wrong to me.

This is my situation. My (now ex) husband was in the forces, so we moved about a lot. I gave up my well paid job as a pharmacist when DD came along as I couldn't do the long days/on call with him often being away at short notice. When DS came along it cemented our decision as even though I could afford to pay for 2 full time nursery places by taking a p/t job, WE didn't want both in nursery f/t & WE didn't think it fair for me to have to do all of the house "stuff" on top of everything else.

This has had a huge effect on my own pension - not only due to lack of salary, but also as I had to turn down a PhD as his job moved, then give up a postgrad. diploma I'd got almost 1/3 through as we moved again - having these qualifications would have increased my salary & job prospects.

My ex has slowly realised that he wouldn't have been able to have the career he has had if I hadn't stayed at home for a large chunk of time. But the simple fact is I have been financially disadvantaged through decisions WE made & if there is a way for me to recover some of those funds then I don't see anything wrong with it. After all if we'd stayed together I'd be getting some of that pension money spent on me

Perelandra

Interesting thread.

Would it make a difference (legally/morally) if the pensions had been earned while the people were single?

It brings the marriage vow "all that I have, I share with you" into perspective.

doughnutmachine

I've often thought that it's unfair that any inheritances received during the marriage are shared on divorce. It would grieve me if I inherited money from a family member then had to give half of it away

geri1965_2

doughnutmachine wrote: »

I've often thought that it's unfair that any inheritances received during the marriage are shared on divorce. It would grieve me if I inherited money from a family member then had to give half of it away

Don't get married then. You knew the rules when you signed up.

doughnutmachine

geri1965 wrote: »

Don't get married then. You knew the rules when you signed up.

but it's not even fair for the people that give the money away in the will. I wouldn't be happy bequeathing money to a family member if they were likely to get divorced.

Pollycat

Perelandra wrote: »

Would it make a difference (legally/morally) if the pensions had been earned while the people were single?

A friend of mine who got divorced only got a share of her ex's pensions from the time they were together.

doughnutmachine wrote: »

I've often thought that it's unfair that any inheritances received during the marriage are shared on divorce. It would grieve me if I inherited money from a family member then had to give half of it away

Why?

Shouldn't all money go into the marital pot to be spent/saved for the benefit of both parties?

Pollycat

doughnutmachine wrote: »

but it's not even fair for the people that give the money away in the will. I wouldn't be happy bequeathing money to a family member if they were likely to get divorced.

Then it's up to the people making the will to consider all eventualities and bequeath their money as they wish.

I'm not sure how anyone can know if a family member is 'likely to get divorced' possibly years and years in the future.