Pensions when divorced

atush

Well think that all you like.

But the studies and statistics dont support your view.

atush

grey_gym_sock wrote: »

not a very conclusive argument. there are lots of possible explanations for that correlation.



even if you are their mother?

Yes even if. And if you think there are other explanations, have at it.

Design the next decades long study. wont show any different, but someone will pay for it.

atush

Bootsox wrote: »

So, with 48% of children born outside marriage, are you suggesting that society is heading for some form of meltdown?

From my own point of view, my child was privately educated.

..this was possible for one reason, and one reason only, I refused to get married.

This put me in total control of the finances, i.e. no money wasted on thieving solicitors and mother protected from her own financial ineptitude.

Yes, I am saying that society is already paying and will pay more in future.

As to your situation, and the person you chose to procreate with, that is your own problem. I would not procreate with anyone who was inept as you so kindly call the mother of your children.

Pollycat

I think it's a pity that the OP's thread (and the OP is a newbie at that) has been derailed by an irrelevant comment about getting married.

DancingBadger

mark5 wrote: »

Op,

What happened to the other assets when you divorced?

House, cars, savings etc?

The OP stated there were no monies or property to divide. I would guess they were in rented accommodation and had no savings.

Unfortunately some people just don't view a pension as real money - at least, not until they're scrabbling around for funds later in life.

I'm guessing that as the OP describes the divorce as "amicable" she didn't obtain legal advice. If she did, and her solicitor neglected to cover the issue of pension sharing (unlikely since it became law in 2000) she might have a claim against the solicitor.

Mistermeaner

atush wrote: »

yeah, and the point I AM MAKING is, those children born outside of marriage statistically do worse in both education and life chances.

Dont take my word for it, multiple studies incl one over 60 years long in the UK.

So if you love your kids, marry their mother.

Chicken and egg, cause and effect - easy to draw incorrect conclusions from apparently correlated but non consequential data.

Kim_kim

Bootsox wrote: »

Why blokes bother getting married is beyond me, there's just too much risk involved.

Especially with pensions, because if you get divorced late in life, there's just no time to recover.

Blokes?

It can be the other way too you know.

ZiggerZagger

it is for me

I am left with no pension at 42 after the divorce

the law isn't biased against men - it favours the lower earner, which in most cases is the woman but in my case was my ex (a man)

he came out of it laughing all the way to the bank having contributed the square root of sweet fa throughout the marriage and ended up with about 60% of joint assets

mania112

ZiggerZagger wrote: »

it is for me

I am left with no pension at 42 after the divorce

the law isn't biased against men - it favours the lower earner, which in most cases is the woman but in my case was my ex (a man)

he came out of it laughing all the way to the bank having contributed the square root of sweet fa throughout the marriage and ended up with about 60% of joint assets

I am naive to way a divorce works: Is the general rule that you split all assets accumulated during the marriage 50/50? If so, this becomes slightly tricky if one party is clearly contributing more, financially, than the other.

mgdavid

it ought to be, but it isn't, especially if there are young children. It is then based on 'need' which often results in the resident caring parent (frequently female) keeping the house and some assets; a 60/40 split is not unusual and it can be even more unbalanced......