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

Mojisola

JustAnotherSaver wrote: »

Then 2 more things that make my blood boil a bit then after going through the thread...

* Man lives by self until he's 50. He's contributed to his pension since he was say 20 - that's 30 years. He gets married at 50 & then divorced let's say 5 years later at 55 (just in case there's some sort of 12-24etc month clause that'll rescue him). The wife then gets hold of his 30 years contributions when she didn't even know the guy? That to me is very wrong as it was nothing to do with her.

After a short marriage (usually 2 years or shorter), the court would aim at putting both back in the position they were before the marriage so that's some protection.

Similarly, after a 5 year marriage without any children to consider, it's very unlikely that the pre-marriage assets would be divided 50/50.

* Man & wife live together. Man's parent leaves man something in the parents will, be it cash or some expensive item. The will specifically says to the man, not to the woman (but doesn't specify not to the woman) & the will was created well after they were married. The bloke would then have to half this sum of money or squabble over the item just because he's married, even when the will left it to HIM & not HER?

Again, seems very very wrong to me.

If one of a married couple inherits or wins money, it's normal to assume they will spend it jointly.

If the testator wants to make sure the DIL/SIL can't get their hands on the money, they should make specific arrangements.

The traditional marriage vows say that everything will be shared within the marriage. If a couple don't want that to happen, they either shouldn't get married or set up ways of protecting their share. Rich families have done this for years to make sure the family fortune stays intact.

lvader

jamesd wrote: »

Of course you should. What about the case of divorcing due to spousal abuse, say, or a spouse who is not contributing to the upkeep of the children and a divorce is required to obtain adequate income to care for them properly? In such cases the divorced parties are already worse off then a similar married grouping because there are fewer shared costs and hence more tax cost for such things as council tax and taxes on utilities.

I was talking about happily married couples with no reason to divorce other than the tax system. Elderly care is anther area where this comes up.

jamesd

Hw should the tax system tell the difference between happily married couples and couples who are not happily married?

lvader

No it shouldn't favour getting divorced full stop.

mjdh1957

How many happily-married couples would get divorced to save a bit of tax?

And wouldn't any tax saving be wiped out by solicitors' costs and court fees?

I don't understand the concern about this.

Pension splitting seems to me to be a fair way to allocate a divorcing couple's assets. A pension in this case is just another asset.

JustAnotherSaver

Andy_L wrote: »

Why should a pension be treated differently to any other savings vehicle? Plenty of people use ISAs or invest in housing for retirement savings instead of a pension.

Because i'd imagine that a joint savings account/bank account would have contributions in it from both people.


However a pension would have contributions in it from only one, especially in the case i gave where it comes DIRECT from the employer end, rather than the banks end.
And especially even moreso when it's been contributed to for 30 years when the OH wasn't even known. Why should they get their mits on that 30yrs worth? IMO, they shouldn't.



I also recall asking about this sort of stuff some time ago (not necessarily pensions, but protecting things after marriage) & i was told (on here) that basically you can't. Marriage will rule out any arrangement you make & it WILL get split 50/50.

Still, i asked, i got my answer, i don't agree with it, but there's nothing that can be done about it.

BobQ

There are all sorts of ifs and buts in these scenarios, but the real issue is that the law should ensure that whatever the couple acquire while married should be divided equally assuming no blame is being apportioned.

tattycath

virtuallyfree wrote: »

From my experience:
- the husband is the highest earner
- the wife is the main care giver
- the wife gives up her career to move into the suburbs as her husband wishes
- the wife works part time or in fits and starts
- the husband continues to commute to the big smoke and earn lots of money
- the husband continually complains about the devaluing of his pension as if it is his alone
- the wife wonders what she is expected to do for money when they retire, she does not want to live in poverty
- the wife leaves
- the husband talks about his pension as if it is his alone, luckily the law/ court disagrees and gives the wife some
- the wife meets a nice new man who is happy to share everything

If you are a scrooge, it will seem wrong.
If you are not, it won't.

What about, the wife wants to work and has a good job
Husband has job
Wife has a good pension pot
Husband has a small pension pot
Husband and wife own separate properties
Wife has more equity in her property
Husband and wife live in husbands property
Wife doesn't pay anything towards bills cos she has her own house
Husband gets deeper into debt trying to fund family on just his wage
Wife has savings
Wife leaves due to breakdown of marriage (goes to own property).
They get divorced
Wife says I won't go for half of everything and your pension coz my pot's bigger than yours anyway.
Ex husband has no fight left in him
He then meets someone who is happy to share goals, dreams, bills and savings.
Just being devils advocate here-it does happen.

jamesd

lvader wrote: »

No it shouldn't favour getting divorced full stop.

OK. Does this mean that you want the tax system to have children of divorced parents live with less household income than those of married parents? You do know that that is the natural consequence of what you're advocating? Surely it's a bad thing for the tax system to arrange for children not living in a marriage to have less household income when they are already disadvantaged by their circumstances?

Setting aside children for the moment, those living in single person households already have higher per-person taxes, so why should there be an additional tax break beyond the ones that married couples already get form sharing accommodation ad utilities and hence paying lower taxes on those?

Pollycat

JustAnotherSaver wrote: »

* Man lives by self until he's 50. He's contributed to his pension since he was say 20 - that's 30 years. He gets married at 50 & then divorced let's say 5 years later at 55 (just in case there's some sort of 12-24etc month clause that'll rescue him). The wife then gets hold of his 30 years contributions when she didn't even know the guy? That to me is very wrong as it was nothing to do with her.

Pollycat wrote: »

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

jamesd wrote: »

That's normal in England and Wales but in Scotland it can be all of it, not just the time of the marriage.

So if you're not living in Scotland, you don't need to worry about losing that portion of your pension pot that pre-dates your relationship.

JustAnotherSaver wrote: »

* Man & wife live together. Man's parent leaves man something in the parents will, be it cash or some expensive item. The will specifically says to the man, not to the woman (but doesn't specify not to the woman) & the will was created well after they were married. The bloke would then have to half this sum of money or squabble over the item just because he's married, even when the will left it to HIM & not HER?

The quotes below show that there are ways of ensuring that a partners doesn't get his/her paws on any inheritance.

Pollycat wrote: »

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

Mojisola wrote: »

If one of a married couple inherits or wins money, it's normal to assume they will spend it jointly.

If the testator wants to make sure the DIL/SIL can't get their hands on the money, they should make specific arrangements.

The traditional marriage vows say that everything will be shared within the marriage. If a couple don't want that to happen, they either shouldn't get married or set up ways of protecting their share. Rich families have done this for years to make sure the family fortune stays intact.

JustAnotherSaver wrote: »

Again, seems very very wrong to me.

So what is very wrong?