Pension Planning - Silver Divorce - The Last Taboo?

Silvertabby

I don't know much about pensions-in-payment and divorce but it seems to be a problematic area as DB schemes don't seem to have any mechanism to split a pension-in-payment. I believe that you are correct that divorce settlements may ear-mark pension income to a former spouse but this will probably cease payment on the death of the scheme member. 'Widow' seems to be specifically defined as the legal partner of the deceased scheme member - ex spouses don't qualify.

DB Pensions in payment can be split on divorce in the same way as pre-retirement pension benefits. For example, in the case of the LGPS, if the divorce court order specifies a pension sharing order (PSO) of, say, a 50/50 split, then the benefits are divided into 2 separate records - one for the pensioner and one for the spouse. If the spouse is younger than the LGPS pensioner then their share of the pension is preserved in the LGPS until the spouse reaches scheme pensionable age. That money is safeguarded in the spouses name, and will be paid even if the LGPS member dies. This is typical of public sector pensions and I can see no reason why private sector pension funds wouldn't operate a similar system.

Pension ear-marking is used very rarely these days, as the allocation would cease on the death of the pensioner.

[Deleted User]

What does DH mean?

missbiggles1

mgdavid wrote: »

Statistically I believe you (and your acquaintances) are unusual, at least in having a significant pension.

Define "significant".

missile

Many couples are perfectly happy and never contemplate divorce.

OP may have opened a can of worms? By openly discussing what would we do if .... , OP may encourage spouse to think the grass may be greener.

OP may be better devoting this negative energy toward making the marriage stronger.

Number75

I am interested in the comments about social change and how it seems to be suggested that younger women will be better off because they'll build their own pension pots.

I actually see a social change that will put many women in a worse position (and some men, but mainly women). That is, the tendency to have children and napalm your earnings outside of marriage.

At least Sam has a legal claim on her ex husband's FS pensions. And a legally claim on the house even if it was his wages that paid the mortgage and she was never a party to that.

There are still PLENTY of women staying at home to raise children, or working part time for the same reason, and / or returning to full time work later and on far lower wages than they could have achieved had the couple equalised their earning opportunities.

40 year old "Sam" is going to split with her BOYFRIEND (and father of their adult children) in 20 years time. Next generation Sam will have no claim in his pension, or on the house.

I think next generation greying at the roots only Sam needs to wake up now, far more than fully Silver Sam!

The social changes are not all in her favour.

Number75

I don't understand your comment about institutions and the law catching up, though. The law protects Sam now - if it needs to catch up, it isn't with silver or any other colour divorce - it is with unmarried parents. And for institutions - what change is needed?

It is a fact that 2 live cheaper together - the law isn't going to change that.

It's not the law that needs to change, it is people's planning.

My fianc! and I have retirement plans considered both together and apart. Perhaps because I'm a natural planner, but also perhaps because I am divorced and he is widowed. We assume nothing.

badmemory

Institutions finally caught up with pension sharing before it was in payment (not in time for my divorce). They need to catch up with pension actually in payment.

The problem with retirement is that whatever income/savings you have that is it. If it happens in your fifties you still have a chance to get things sorted. Can still take out a mortgage and hopefully increase your earnings. There is also the problem of living up to your means when retired, another reason for not accumulating, but then you don't need to normally, you can't lose your income through redundancy or illness so you don't need to protect yourselves from lack of income.

Triumph13

DairyQueen wrote: »

DH and I both still believe we each grabbed ourselves a bargain but he may spot a better offer amongst the pensioner discounts one day, or I may decide that his idiosyncrasies trigger homicidal tendencies, rather than laughter, when witnessed 24/7.

Given the differences you have identified in the positions of a widow and a divorcee, the logical conclusion would seem to be that if his idiosyncrasies do trigger homicidal tendencies then you should act on them!

GunJack

Triumph13 wrote: »

Given the differences you have identified in the positions of a widow and a divorcee, the logical conclusion would seem to be that if his idiosyncrasies do trigger homicidal tendencies then you should act on them!

:rotfl: :rotfl:

glad you said it, it's what I thought when reading through this thread

westv

Deleted_User wrote: »

What does DH mean?

For some weird reason there's a fad for putting "dearest" in front of husband, wife, daughter etc..
So DH is dearest husband.