Is it morally wrong to put large amounts into pension.

[Gearandglasses]

I found out that my exh is doing this and is therefore paying less than 40% tax and also making CSA think that he is not as high an earner as he thinks. The difference is significant, think school fees for two per year.
I don't need the money to live since I work and take care of the children full time, it just seems a little off that he'd prefer to put money away instead of buying things for the children now, whilst they are small. It just left a bitter taste, since I have nothing left each month to even think about a pension let alone high contributions as all my money goes on the children.

For the OP and all the others saying their Ex does this, and there is nothing you can do. Yes you absolutely can! A financial settlement is purely for the basis of YOUR claim on their pension. That has nothing to do with them reducing their income going forward by paying large sums into their pension, which means that the money for the CHILDREN is reduced.

Request a variation for a diversion of income for pension contributions via your CMS claim. Depending on how old your EX is they will determine if the amounts they are paying in are excessive (which potentially they are on the amount you have stated)

It is not wrong to pay into your pension , but it is morally wrong to deprived your children. If you can't afford to pay into a pension, then you do need the money. Don't be proud.

That's insane. What a ridiculously misogynistic world we live in.

Why is it misogynistic? Any parent, separated or not, who pays into a private pension has less to directly spend on their children today. That’s obviously not always wrong.

A lot of this money would not be free to give to the children if it wasn't paid into a pension, it would be taken in tax.

That's especially true if it is earnings between £100,000 and £125,140 - that money is effectively taxed at 62%. Lots of people earning at these levels put tens of thousand a year extra into a pension to avoid this and I would say they are not morally wrong to do that.

I suppose it means your children are not getting that money - but then that doesn't appear to be the arrangement you have with your ex. Would you expect any pay rise he gets to also be diverted to you and the kids? Do you spend any extra you earn exclusively on the children or do you get to keep some of it for you?

I agree it does seem insane - especially as considerably less “optional” spending like rent and food isn’t taken off.

I suppose in the public sector (and a few private) there are more or less compulsory pension contributions for the workplace pension but it would ideally be possible to allow for these but not for top up contributions. Or maybe a straight allowance of 4% of gross salary (for example) on pension contributions and do the calculations after that.

It’s misogynistic because lone parents are predominantly female and more likely to rely on CM. They are also likely to earn less and be responsible for a higher proportion of childcare.
He’s a selfish brute OP.

To be fair, until the recent budget, anything in his pension (assuming DC, which based on his ability to flex contributions it is) could be left directly to his children tax free upon death. Or, perhaps on reaching 55/56/57 he intends taking out the 25% tax free to give to his kids as to fund their house deposits. We just don’t know as we only have on side of the story. I think when you get divorced you have to just let go; the OP said she doesn’t need the money, we don’t know what else he spends on his children.

I suppose it means your children are not getting that money - but then that doesn't appear to be the arrangement you have with your ex. Would you expect any pay rise he gets to also be diverted to you and the kids?

She is receiving the money via CSA so that is exactly how it should work - if he gets a pay rise, his payments would increase because they are a percentage of salary. Not sure why you think that isn’t the arrangement?

Whilst you did take a clean break, is it worth going back to solicitors about this. I know some divorce cases do go back to court if one side is effectively hiding assests - this sounds similar.
Did you not get a portion of pension when you divorced?

The OP wanted a clean break though and it’s fairly standard to have this in place to stop further claims by either party. Men can feel hard done by too. She has no possibility of a claim against ex. He can do what he wants with his money. It doesn’t prevent a conversation about him helping out financially with DC, eg clothes and school trips. He’s presumably making the payments because his pension isn’t factored into the financial remedy. The children could make a claim though.

It’s a difficult one as if he didn’t put it in a pension you wouldn’t be entitled to it either as it would go in an effective 60% tax rate.

Did you receive half his pension in a divorce?
He may be trying to build up his pot again depending how old he is.
If he’s putting more than that in simply to reduce what he gives you for the benefit of his children then that’s immoral.

I hope not, we do it- we were advised to.

We aren’t trying to get out of paying maintenance though.

Agree with the majority of posters that it is only morally wrong if it is done to reduce maintenance payments for children.

I would also like to add that it is time the government stopped using income net of pension payments when determining eligibility for Child Benefit. I’ve known some very high earners throw large sums of money into their pensions to bring them below the cut off point for CB. It is only the truly wealthy who can afford to do this, and the country can’t afford to allow this to continue.

It’s a difficult one as if he didn’t put it in a pension you wouldn’t be entitled to it either as it would go in an effective 60% tax rate.

@fiorentina from the government link I posed above, the CSA uses gross income after pensions and disregards tax

Step 1 – Income
Unless a paying parent gets certain benefits, we work out child maintenance using their taxable gross annual income as the starting point.
By ‘income’, we mean earnings from employment, self-employment (profits from a business), occupational or personal pensions and certain benefits.
Gross annual income is the paying parent’s yearly income before Income Tax and National Insurance are taken off, but after occupational or personal pension scheme contributions are taken away

There is. You go to court. It takes ages.

But the courts have the power to instruct cms to do account for this.

Is he putting money into his pension specifically to hide it, or is he doing it because it’s tax efficient / he needs to build up his pension post-divorce?

I think it’s probably morally wrong to do this exclusively to avoid giving money towards his children…

… but it’s not if he wants to bolster his pension.

It’s very normal financial planning for people earning over the higher tax thresholds.

Not in itself. The tax system is set up that way so people can save enough to reasonably provide for themselves and their care in old age.

The more they save - up to the limit - the less chance there is of the state (you and I) having to pay for their care.

I think the key question is Does he pay enough towards his children's upkeep to provide properly for them?

Not morally wrong to maximise your pension contributions if you can afford to do so, in fact sensible.
To do so to avoid providing your children with support, however, is.

@MidnightPatrol i would imagine it is some of both. But couples who are together have to weigh up what needs to be spent on the kids and what they can afford to save in a pension. If the man in question was contributing to his kids in line with his actual gross salary, then OP might not be out of money at the end of each month because she would have a contribution to her kids that truly reflected their father’s income

Assumed clean break. But perhaps wrong.

Clean break only covers assets etc between the divorcing couple, not child support

Same, mine did too.

Under CSA it didn’t work like that. Until your case was reviewed it stayed the same. His pay increases made no odds

Thanks - I don’t have direct knowledge. But if a RP was aware that an NRP had had a pay rise, could they request a review?

Only an issue if he's trying to avoid cms.