Page 8 | Is it morally wrong to put large amounts into pension.

dottiehens · 26/02/2025 18:59

Gearandglasses · 24/02/2025 16:59

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.

If he does not put into his pension he would pay more tax so it won’t be for your children anyways. However, this pension may be for the two of you in the future. People are desperate to not leave all their earnings in taxes as they are becoming a lot and unfair to some high earners.

Milkmani8 · 26/02/2025 19:02

I see plenty of men at work squirrelling money away into their pension through AVCs and then scrapping the AVC completely once a new CMS calculation comes through. It’s also a way of gaining UC, they can contribute as much as possible each month as long as they don’t fall below national minimum wage and then get UC to top them up. I don’t know exactly how it works with the UC but I agree that it’s morally wrong for both aspects.

SheilaFentiman · 26/02/2025 19:09

However, this pension may be for the two of you in the future.

How would her ex’s pension be for “the two of them” in the future?

Dogsbreath7 · 26/02/2025 20:44

Hepherlous · 24/02/2025 19:34

I've always thought it was strange that income for CMS calculation purposes could be reduced by the entire £60k pension allowance. A proportion of it sure, but the whole £60k? Equally strange that CMS payments aren't indexed linked.

If that’s the case it’s above board and he hasn’t done anything morally wrong. Not enough people paying into pensions at sufficient rates.

wveryone is assuming he isn’t paying for his children but where is the evidence of this?

GabriellaMontez · 26/02/2025 20:53

Tristan5 · 25/02/2025 23:10

The CSA knows the financial details, you don’t, yet you make big assumptions.

The facts are that the CSA have reviewed matters in detail and the guy is honoring the stipulated payments.

Time to move on…..please!!

Show quote history

No. CMS have a figure from HMRC for his income AFTER pension contributions.

CMS don't have many details. That's what makes this a popular tactic for shit dads.

CSA hasn't existed for many years.

Tristan5 · 26/02/2025 21:57

GabriellaMontez · 26/02/2025 20:53

No. CMS have a figure from HMRC for his income AFTER pension contributions.

CMS don't have many details. That's what makes this a popular tactic for shit dads.

CSA hasn't existed for many years.

Show quote history

No.

CMS (I much prefer CSA, they do the same thing!) have the full overview of gross income and relevant deductions, like tax, national insurance and pension contributions, to establish the net income on which payments are based.

Smart lawyers will seek to establish, in advance, agreement about pension contributions.

The OP opted for a clean break, soI’m not sure what we’re arguing about.

Any man who ups pension contributions to the detriment of his children is a prick.

littlemisspigg · 26/02/2025 22:29

Gearandglasses · 24/02/2025 16:59

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.

How did you find out?

TizerorFizz · 27/02/2025 09:04

@Tristan5 In any divorce lawyers talk about pensions - a pension is part of the financial pot for the financial order. However that’s before the clean break. There is NO negotiation possible now. That’s what clean break means. No return to finances by any lawyer! If the pension was not shared by a financial order in any way, I guess the op didn’t take advice or took a bigger share of the house. She would have had at least 50% of what money and assets were available. If it was bricks and mortar and no shard of his pension that might have been foolish but many women do this. What he then does with his pension is his choice. He should be asked to help out financially in other ways.

Snakebite61 · 27/02/2025 09:28

Gearandglasses · 24/02/2025 16:59

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.

The rich have no morals anyway.

Tristan5 · 27/02/2025 16:23

TizerorFizz · 27/02/2025 09:04

@Tristan5 In any divorce lawyers talk about pensions - a pension is part of the financial pot for the financial order. However that’s before the clean break. There is NO negotiation possible now. That’s what clean break means. No return to finances by any lawyer! If the pension was not shared by a financial order in any way, I guess the op didn’t take advice or took a bigger share of the house. She would have had at least 50% of what money and assets were available. If it was bricks and mortar and no shard of his pension that might have been foolish but many women do this. What he then does with his pension is his choice. He should be asked to help out financially in other ways.

I know!👍

crankytoes · 27/02/2025 16:29

TizerorFizz · 27/02/2025 09:04

@Tristan5 In any divorce lawyers talk about pensions - a pension is part of the financial pot for the financial order. However that’s before the clean break. There is NO negotiation possible now. That’s what clean break means. No return to finances by any lawyer! If the pension was not shared by a financial order in any way, I guess the op didn’t take advice or took a bigger share of the house. She would have had at least 50% of what money and assets were available. If it was bricks and mortar and no shard of his pension that might have been foolish but many women do this. What he then does with his pension is his choice. He should be asked to help out financially in other ways.

Doesn't clean break refer to splitting of assets between spouses?
I thought this had nothing to do with maintenance payments for children.

0ctavia · 27/02/2025 16:52

crankytoes · 27/02/2025 16:29

Doesn't clean break refer to splitting of assets between spouses?
I thought this had nothing to do with maintenance payments for children.

Show quote history

You are right, it has nothing to do with it at all. You divorce your spouse, not your children.

I think the poster who raised this is confused. Or they are trying to argue that when a man leaves a marriage, he then has no moral responsibility for his children, which is not the position in Uk law. It is of course the de facto position that many men ( and their new girlfriends ) take.

TizerorFizz · 27/02/2025 19:42

No im not confused. Im saying the op should have negotiated on a share of the pension and would have got at least 50% of the assets. She cannot go back for more and he can do what he wants with his share, as can she. If he’s reduced maintenance payments, she has little she can do other than get money for dc in another way. Clean break means no going back to the pot. Of course he should pay though.

Xenia · 27/02/2025 19:46

It is lawful. That is the only thing that matters. Eg I do not begrudge anyone claiming benefits to which they are entitled by law. I might want the state to change the law so I have much lower taxes but I don't blame anyone working within the law in the system in which we are.

I am a higher earner woman who paid out loads to a lower earner man on my divorce to get a clean break (in our case we each kept our own pensions as they were about the same so did not have a pension sharing order).

I have heard of people who do all sorts to pay less either in spousal maintenance or child support . One moved to Thailand. Another gave up all work and lived off the new wife's money. Another moved to France having given up work to open a vineyard - ie to earn nothing.

My advice to women is always work full time and pick high paid work. Work full time even when you have tiny babies. Even if that means you will be paying out to a man on a divorce at least you have money, power and control.

0ctavia · 27/02/2025 21:01

TizerorFizz · 27/02/2025 19:42

No im not confused. Im saying the op should have negotiated on a share of the pension and would have got at least 50% of the assets. She cannot go back for more and he can do what he wants with his share, as can she. If he’s reduced maintenance payments, she has little she can do other than get money for dc in another way. Clean break means no going back to the pot. Of course he should pay though.

She’s not trying to get more of the capital asset that is his pension. That was a matrimonial asset so I assume it was taken into account in the divorce settlement.

She is disputing the amount of his current income that he is diverting into his pension now instead of supporting his children.

You are confusing capital and income.

And what happened during the marriage and what happens now , when they are divorced.

And a joint asset that was that was divided for the spouses and the income that is for the support of the children.

And yes there is something she can do, if CMS or FTT agree it’s unreasonable.

Tristan5 · 27/02/2025 21:35

0ctavia · 27/02/2025 21:01

She’s not trying to get more of the capital asset that is his pension. That was a matrimonial asset so I assume it was taken into account in the divorce settlement.

She is disputing the amount of his current income that he is diverting into his pension now instead of supporting his children.

You are confusing capital and income.

And what happened during the marriage and what happens now , when they are divorced.

And a joint asset that was that was divided for the spouses and the income that is for the support of the children.

And yes there is something she can do, if CMS or FTT agree it’s unreasonable.

Show quote history

The OP opted for clean break, so for the second tone, WTF are we arguing about??

TizerorFizz · 27/02/2025 21:45

It’s his income so he can do what he wants with it. How much are dc going without? What else does he provide? What share of the pension has the op got? When is it paying out? You would only really be bothered if your dc really were not getting enough money. Has there been pension offsetting and is there a share of the pension with the op? I know this is about current expenses but we don’t have a full picture.

CoffeeCup14 · 28/02/2025 01:09

TizerorFizz · 27/02/2025 21:45

It’s his income so he can do what he wants with it. How much are dc going without? What else does he provide? What share of the pension has the op got? When is it paying out? You would only really be bothered if your dc really were not getting enough money. Has there been pension offsetting and is there a share of the pension with the op? I know this is about current expenses but we don’t have a full picture.

The DC aren't going without. OP is. She's spending the money on the children rather than putting into her pension.

crankytoes · 28/02/2025 07:32

TizerorFizz · 27/02/2025 19:42

No im not confused. Im saying the op should have negotiated on a share of the pension and would have got at least 50% of the assets. She cannot go back for more and he can do what he wants with his share, as can she. If he’s reduced maintenance payments, she has little she can do other than get money for dc in another way. Clean break means no going back to the pot. Of course he should pay though.

I didn't realise she was going after his pension. I thought she was talking about him reducing his CM requirements by shovelling as much as he can into his pension.

crankytoes · 28/02/2025 07:38

TizerorFizz · 27/02/2025 21:45

It’s his income so he can do what he wants with it. How much are dc going without? What else does he provide? What share of the pension has the op got? When is it paying out? You would only really be bothered if your dc really were not getting enough money. Has there been pension offsetting and is there a share of the pension with the op? I know this is about current expenses but we don’t have a full picture.

You do seem confused.

If he does anything^^ to make his income unavailable thus reducing his CM then it's morally wrong. It's got nothing at all to do with clean breaks. You seem hooked on clean breaks even though it's irrelevant to the topic.

If he hid money off shore. If he was self employed and reduced his 'income' or if he did anything else to make his income no longer part of the calculation then he's doing something awful.
It's not about 'are the dc going without'

Do you honestly think it's up to him to decide how much is enough? Do you think it's a voluntary contribution?

TizerorFizz · 28/02/2025 09:55

The loss in cma payments can be recovered. Has the op asked for anything else from him financially? We don’t know. School trips etc.

Also, is the op self employed? Why doesn’t she make compulsory pension contributions like everyone else? She is probably being economical with the truth. Has she got the house? What was the divorce settlement? We don’t know. She could be living in a £1m house for all we know. It’s all about balance - could anyone quantify how much he’s now not paying? Thousands? Or hundreds? He’s still paying but just not at much. So how much less? Enough to make a huge difference to her pension - the share she might have of the marital asset pension? Any ideas?

Tristan5 · 28/02/2025 10:49

TizerorFizz · 28/02/2025 09:55

The loss in cma payments can be recovered. Has the op asked for anything else from him financially? We don’t know. School trips etc.

Also, is the op self employed? Why doesn’t she make compulsory pension contributions like everyone else? She is probably being economical with the truth. Has she got the house? What was the divorce settlement? We don’t know. She could be living in a £1m house for all we know. It’s all about balance - could anyone quantify how much he’s now not paying? Thousands? Or hundreds? He’s still paying but just not at much. So how much less? Enough to make a huge difference to her pension - the share she might have of the marital asset pension? Any ideas?

The OP had a clean-break divorce, meaning that all financial ties are severed, with the exception of course of CM payments.

So there is no marital asset pension, for example.

TizerorFizz · 28/02/2025 10:58

??? I know but the pension could have been divvied up via the financial settlement! We don’t know if she kept the house and he kept the pension. Or if she got a share of the pension. She presumably is wanting to add to it too, but we don’t know what pension she means. I’m aware the settlement is final.

Why is she not making compulsory pension payments if she’s working? Not paying anything suggests she’s not working or is living on her self employed earnings. It’s not unusual to take a holiday lfrom pension payments either. If she can earn more, she should.

None of this absolves ex from paying up but the CMS payments are not the only way a ex could pay. There is no reason why she cannot have a conversation about needing the shortfall for dc. However if she’s got a good deal and a fantastic house, she can possibly alter how she earns and spends money and how dc can be provided for.

0ctavia · 28/02/2025 12:00

@TizerorFizz

None of these things you mention ( the divorce settlement, the RP income, how she spends her money , being self employed, having a million pound house ) are relevant to the calculation of CM.

It doesn’t matter if she gets her nails done, feeds her kids MacDonalds, drives a Ferrari, has a £10M house and earns £20M a year.

The NRP still has a legal ( and moral ) duty to support his children . That’s calculated (generally ) on his INCOME . If he’s in prison he will pay nothing . If he’s on benefits that will be £7/ week. If he’s on £1M a year it will be a lot more ( but not as much as you’d think ).

Do you undertand - it’s about the PP .

his income
does he get state benefits
the number of relevant children
how many nights the children stay with him
are there permitted costs that need to be taken to account, like school fees or travel to see the children

Thats pretty much it. So the fact that he is reducing his income by a ( possibly ) unreasonable amount is a relevant factor and the RP can put in a variation request to CMS.

I get that you don’t agree with this. I can only assume that you have your own personal reasons for continuing to derail this thread with your own theories.

I can’t begin to guess why you don’t just read the CMS guidelines , which are online.

Im not interested in convincing you. I just want to make sure that the correct information is out there, and that RP whose children are being short changed know that they can request a variation .

And PP, who are keen to cheat their own children out of money, know that it will catch up with them in the end.

CoffeeCup14 · 28/02/2025 12:01

TizerorFizz · 28/02/2025 09:55

The loss in cma payments can be recovered. Has the op asked for anything else from him financially? We don’t know. School trips etc.

Also, is the op self employed? Why doesn’t she make compulsory pension contributions like everyone else? She is probably being economical with the truth. Has she got the house? What was the divorce settlement? We don’t know. She could be living in a £1m house for all we know. It’s all about balance - could anyone quantify how much he’s now not paying? Thousands? Or hundreds? He’s still paying but just not at much. So how much less? Enough to make a huge difference to her pension - the share she might have of the marital asset pension? Any ideas?

Are you the OP's ex? 'She is probably being economical with the truth' - do you assume everyone you meet is lying to you?

Is it morally wrong to put large amounts into pension.

Interested in this thread?