Separation - Bespoke Financial Issues

PompeyPete

Takmon wrote: »

From an ethical point of view it would be unfair for her to get any of his pension income especially considering she has no income of her own so she has been sponging off him for how many years?.

Perhaps she should have billed her man every month for all the cooking, cleaning, loving, child minding....and goodness knows whatever else she provided him.;)

Takmon

PompeyPete wrote: »

Perhaps she should have billed her man every month for all the cooking, cleaning, loving, child minding....and goodness knows whatever else she provided him.;)

Ah but you say they have no dependent children which presumably has been the case for at least a few years due to their ages so there was nothing stopping her getting a job in all that time. Instead she chose to live off the income of her husband, which isn't a problem while they are married but it's very unfair for him to have to keep supporting her after they break up.

PompeyPete

Takmon wrote: »

Ah but you say they have no dependent children which presumably has been the case for at least a few years due to their ages so there was nothing stopping her getting a job in all that time. Instead she chose to live off the income of her husband, which isn't a problem while they are married but it's very unfair for him to have to keep supporting her after they break up.

Fair enough.....mutual decision perhaps.

PompeyPete

My real point though is.....he and she have enjoyed most of their 42 years of marriage, but it's now gone completely stale. There's still time for both of them to have a second chance with someone else if they meet the right person.

So a fair 50/50 split seems reasonable [apart from the War Disability Pension] at the time of Separation. Obviously if either of their financial situations change then they should meet head-on and renegotiate.

I think that's fair....or am I missing something?

I'll address the time-frame, if there is one, for the sale/disposable of the jointly owned house next.

TBagpuss

Takmon wrote: »

From an ethical point of view it would be unfair for her to get any of his pension income especially considering she has no income of her own so she has been sponging off him for how many years?.

She will already get half the value of the house so she can go get a job if she wants more money!.
But that's just my point of view and i think marriage is a bad idea anyway due to situations like this.

She hasn't ben sponging off him (or ratherm, there is no evidence that she has)

They had a marriage in which they made various decisions, as a couple. Some of those may have included prioritisig his career and earning capacity, and ability to build up pension, over hers, on the unspoken agreement that those assets being built up as a result would be shared.

She may well have done far more of the unpaid work in the relationship, for caring for any children, to home making etc.

If she had kbown, 43 years ago, that they would divorce at 60+, she might well have made difernet choices about those thngs.

The pensions are assets which were built up by them both, over the course of a long marriage.

Ethically, it is entirely fair they are split. otherwise you have a situation where after a partnership here they have both contribued to the welfare of the family and the marrige in equally importnat ways, he would be massively better off than her at a time in their lives where her ability to built new assets is severely limited.

Takmon

TBagpuss wrote: »

She hasn't ben sponging off him (or ratherm, there is no evidence that she has)

They had a marriage in which they made various decisions, as a couple. Some of those may have included prioritisig his career and earning capacity, and ability to build up pension, over hers, on the unspoken agreement that those assets being built up as a result would be shared.

She may well have done far more of the unpaid work in the relationship, for caring for any children, to home making etc.

If she had kbown, 43 years ago, that they would divorce at 60+, she might well have made difernet choices about those thngs.

The pensions are assets which were built up by them both, over the course of a long marriage.

Ethically, it is entirely fair they are split. otherwise you have a situation where after a partnership here they have both contribued to the welfare of the family and the marrige in equally importnat ways, he would be massively better off than her at a time in their lives where her ability to built new assets is severely limited.

Yes i understand the point you are making but like i said considering their age the need for her to look after their children probably ended quite a while a go. When this finished she would have been free to go back to work and contribute financially to the household. She obviously chose not to do this but instead chose to live on her husbands income for all those years.

When they were married and both happy with this situation then it is obviously fine.

But i say it's extremely unfair for her to expect this financial support to continue when the marriage has ended.

Sky_

Takmon wrote: »

Yes i understand the point you are making but like i said considering their age the need for her to look after their children probably ended quite a while a go. When this finished she would have been free to go back to work and contribute financially to the household. She obviously chose not to do this but instead chose to live on her husbands income for all those years.

When they were married and both happy with this situation then it is obviously fine.

But i say it's extremely unfair for her to expect this financial support to continue when the marriage has ended.

You're assuming that this was not a mutual decsion, or was even the husband's preference. Speaking very personally as a mother of grown children, my husband (of several decades) would be delighted if I chose to give up work and be a home-maker, despite the fact that I'd be 'living off his income'. He fully accepts that this means I'd still be entitled to half his pensions and so on, should we ever seperate.



I'm sure my husband is not alone in this preference and that there are many partners (of both sexes) who would love to have a full time 'home-maker' at home, but whose partners still prefer to work. I'd also suggest that the situation is more complex if when military service is involved, as this can mean frequent moves and (particularly at higher levels) attending and hosting numerous social functions as part of the wife's role.



I'm not saying that the above is definitely is the case with the couple, but there is no evidence to suggest that it is not, so it's rather judgemental to decide that she has been 'sponging' off her husband for all these years, as you seem to be inferring...

LilElvis

Takmon wrote: »

Yes i understand the point you are making but like i said considering their age the need for her to look after their children probably ended quite a while a go. When this finished she would have been free to go back to work and contribute financially to the household. She obviously chose not to do this but instead chose to live on her husbands income for all those years.

When they were married and both happy with this situation then it is obviously fine.

But i say it's extremely unfair for her to expect this financial support to continue when the marriage has ended.

You're making further assumptions. For all you know she might have spent the years following her children leaving home looking after grandchildren, elderly parents or even her war-disabled husband. After a protracted time out of employment, and at 60+, she is going to be hugely disadvantaged in looking for a job.

Takmon

Sky_ wrote: »

You're assuming that this was not a mutual decsion, or was even the husband's preference. Speaking very personally as a mother of grown children, my husband (of several decades) would be delighted if I chose to give up work and be a home-maker, despite the fact that I'd be 'living off his income'. He fully accepts that this means I'd still be entitled to half his pensions and so on, should we ever seperate.

I'm sure my husband is not alone in this preference and that there are many partners (of both sexes) who would love to have a full time 'home-maker' at home, but whose partners still prefer to work. I'd also suggest that the situation is more complex if when military service is involved, as this can mean frequent moves and (particularly at higher levels) attending and hosting numerous social functions as part of the wife's role.

I'm not saying that the above is definitely is the case with the couple, but there is no evidence to suggest that it is not, so it's rather judgemental to decide that she has been 'sponging' off her husband for all these years, as you seem to be inferring...

If there was a mutual decision for her to not work and live off his income then why would there now be a question of what percentage of his pensions she should get. If it was all decided and agreed then they wouldn't be discussing with people how much she should get and they would just split it all as previously agreed.

But like you say there is no real evidence to know for definite, i have just used the available information to "fill in the blanks" and my post is as correct as yours in that respect.