Pensions paid only to Legal Spouse

xylophone

If a person is aware that the rules of his/her pension scheme provide only for widow/widower and is in a relationship that has endured for thirty or forty years, surely the caring thing to do is indeed to "get the piece of paper" regardless of disdain for the process required to get it?

Presumably he/she had no problem with (say) the legal process of buying property together or signing a rental agreement  with co-habite (e )or obtaining house insurance covering both parties? All these are "pieces of paper"?

And if there is a legal impediment such as  the absence of annulment/divorce, it is surely vitally important to get those "pieces of paper" or the consequence is obvious? 

Pat38493

I think that quite a few financial advisers have given advice to their clients - get married or start a civil partnership.

It's not only the spouse pension at stake - there are also major implications for inheritance taxes as well if you have large sums of money sitting around.

LHW99

Since most DB schemes seem to be historic, rather than newly founded, one reason may be because their trust deeds were set up before the idea of long co-habitation was common, and when pressure to get the "piece of paper" was stronger.

QrizB

Beddie said:

It's yet another area where single people with no dependents are punished financially.

If you have a DC pension you can choose a single life annuity and receive a higher rate than someone choosing a joint life one.

Gary1984

Beddie said:

It's yet another area where single people with no dependents are punished financially. We should be able to forego all the spouses pension etc. and get a higher pension while alive. It's a set of dinosaur rules from when women didn't work and/or build up a pension once they had kids.

But many people start paying into a pension when they're young and more likely to be single. How can they possibly know if they'll be married in 50 year's time. Much simpler and fairer to offer survivor benefits to everyone.

The whole point of a workplace DB pension is to share the risk with others. The risk of having dependents when older, the risk of living a long time, the risk of ill health and so on. What you're arguing for is much closer to a DC scheme where everyone gets their own pot and takes the benefits tailored to them. It also gives (probably) men the option to buy a single life annuity completely screwing over their wives. Give me DB any day!

MEM62

tonynw said:

When do you think things might change regarding pension companies paying pensions to partners that have lost a loved one. 

The probably won't

tonynw said:

At the moment a lot of pensions are only paid to a legal spouse.

And, in the absence of any EoW to the contrary, rightly so

tonynw said:

If you have lived together for 30 or 40 years it counts for nothing. 

Why should it?  If the couple do think that the relationship is worthy of marriage or a civil partnership then why should institutions recognise it as having the same rights as a marriage?  Living together for 30 or 40 years means nothing.  The couple could merely have been friends taking advantage of a convenient domestic arrangement.  How are financial institutions supposed to know?  If you want these kinds of benefits then you need to acknowledge the relationship accordingly.   

Marcon

Gary1984 said:

Beddie said:

It's yet another area where single people with no dependents are punished financially. We should be able to forego all the spouses pension etc. and get a higher pension while alive. It's a set of dinosaur rules from when women didn't work and/or build up a pension once they had kids.

But many people start paying into a pension when they're young and more likely to be single. How can they possibly know if they'll be married in 50 year's time. Much simpler and fairer to offer survivor benefits to everyone.

So who's going to pay the extra cost of doing this?

Gary1984 said:

The whole point of a workplace DB pension is to share the risk with others. The risk of having dependents when older, the risk of living a long time, the risk of ill health and so on. What you're arguing for is much closer to a DC scheme where everyone gets their own pot and takes the benefits tailored to them. It also gives (probably) men the option to buy a single life annuity completely screwing over their wives. Give me DB any day!

Risk sharing, yes - but members tend to be less keen on the idea of sharing 'extra' costs of the sort you are suggesting. Why should employers foot the bill to provide benefits which were never in the rules of the scheme? Since 1988 members have always been able to opt out...

Hoenir

Gary1984 said:

Beddie said:

It's yet another area where single people with no dependents are punished financially. We should be able to forego all the spouses pension etc. and get a higher pension while alive. It's a set of dinosaur rules from when women didn't work and/or build up a pension once they had kids.

But many people start paying into a pension when they're young and more likely to be single. How can they possibly know if they'll be married in 50 year's time. Much simpler and fairer to offer survivor benefits to everyone.

The whole point of a workplace DB pension is to share the risk with others. The risk of having dependents when older, the risk of living a long time, the risk of ill health and so on. What you're arguing for is much closer to a DC scheme where everyone gets their own pot and takes the benefits tailored to them. It also gives (probably) men the option to buy a single life annuity completely screwing over their wives. Give me DB any day!

Given the sponsoring employer bears the brunt of these costs. Many times the contribution of the employee. Extending the benefit simply isn't financially viable. Schemes aren't going to change their rules after decades of operating a certain way. 

eastcorkram

Does Expression of wish count for anything? 
Say you're married for a few years, then split up, separated but not divorced. Then live with someone else for 20 years, and the someone else is named in the EoW. Is that just ignored?

QrizB

eastcorkram said:

Does Expression of wish count for anything? 
Say you're married for a few years, then split up, separated but not divorced. Then live with someone else for 20 years, and the someone else is named in the EoW. Is that just ignored?

That all depends on the rules of the pension.

Having an EOW nominating AN Other when the pension will only pay out to a "wife or civil partner" won't help you.