Pension entitlement in divorce? why

[keyser]

Please someone make me understand why this makes sense or why it is a thing, what am I missing?

Why are pensions considered a joint asset in divorce? let's say I am in a marriage, I work , contribute my equal financial share to the home with a salary that has gone through deductions already(to my pension etc). I am all for equal contribution (chores/finances/child care and I have done it with my ex and it worked just fine and we both worked and paid equally except during maternity).

I am not for marriage on paper since I was a 13years old and saw my dad divorce his ex-wife and lost 1.5 million worth of assets in divorce after just 6 years of marriage.

You’re such a catch, so don’t settle for someone who earns differently to you.

Simples. 🙄

The simple answer is don’t get married.

The detailed one is - don’t get married to someone you “settled” for. For their sake. Marriage isn’t all about a fancy day, it’s legal financial ties.

That's a decision you made together. Not the case for everyone, including my friend. Who's dh earned more than her ( and hid the fact at the time) , chose not to pay into his own pension and is now hijacking hers in divorce. Infuriating.

You don't get married as you understand that marriage means assets are joint if you dont want to do that, dont .

The other thing that many men conveniently forget is the gender pay gap. It’s real and it hits hard. I was promoted regularly and was an equal earner as my ex husband but as soon as we married my promotions stopped because the company (though they’d never admit it) didn’t want to keep promoting someone who was probably going to go off on mat leave. Which I did. And it meant that by the time we divorced, his earnings way outstripped mine. Our pensions all went into the same pot.

If you don't want to share - your assets, your life, the good and the bad - If you don't trust that you and your partner will make important financial decisions together to benefit you both - then don't get married.

I'm behind pensions being a joint asset in theory, but in reality, I'm earning a decent salary because my OH is disabled and I realised I had to pursue higher salaries to avoid a life on benefits. I also save the state loads by being his unpaid carer. I resent that in divorce, I would be expected to cover his lack of pension, savings, earned income. At what point am I compensated or considered in all this. OP, I think you have something of a point.

I agree with this. I have saved more than DH even though I earn less. Why should he benefit from me being sensible ?

Totally agree

Thats my issue ,the person you marry isn't the one you divorce.

It's all lovely getting to join assets and one person will most definitely benefit than the other or become a D head at the end .

It’s definitely not a policy that always results in a fair outcome in my view. Some people do end up screwed by it. But I do think there needs to be some insurance for those partners (usually women, let’s face it) who sacrifice the financial independence of formal employment in order to provide services for (usually male) partners, over a period of years and sometimes decades, that they’d have to pay much, much more for at the market rate. How do we make the system unfailingly fair? I wish I knew. I like a fair system. But I think ‘I earned/saved/invested more, so why should it be split?’ elides some pretty significant factors in a lot of cases. It’s a lot easier to build a successful career and save for a pension when you don’t have to pay the going rate for a childminder, a cook, a cleaner, a therapist, a PA, escorts . . .

OP you don’t sound ready to marry. It is a huge decision to make.

It always has been- but at least in past times and other cultures the institution of marriage has been firmer. Now with women’s freedoms and the lack of shame around prioritising personal happiness it is more of a gamble.

If you want to keep all your money to yourself don’t get married and don’t have children.
If you want children get married. If you’re a woman and you want children definitely get married. You’ll almost certainly be left holding the baby if things go wrong.

I agree OP because salary/future earnings isn’t considered the same way. My high earning STBXH has a tiny pension but will be entitled to half of mine where I get nothing from his whopping salary despite cutting my earnings in half to have our kids. CSA payments don’t touch the sides because eg fully expensed car and erratic high bonus isn’t included - plus he gets to consider his whole salary in his mortgage calculations where I don’t get to include CSA payments in mine. Totally biased.

I suggest you make sure your spouse is signed up for a pension and contributing. They should not be a stay at home parent for any length of time, as it will affect their pension and financial position.

If they take parental leave, make it a household budget line item to contribute to their pension. That way if you divorce, there hopefully will be less inequity in your starting positions.

If you marry you basically share what you have with your new spouse. You can do a prenup on a home but not a pension as far as I know.

A lot of men put a huge lump sum into their pension depriving the family unit of income.

This is tax free at source - so should be considered as a joint assets.

My company pay 12% this is part of my earnings.

DHs company put in 10%

Whist he earns more than me his contribution is already more.

He was in one job less than 12 months and his pension pot is over 50K as it’s been sitting there for years.

I think people really need to look into their pensions more throughly!!

Seems OP is only going to respond to the points he agrees with and ignores those that make valid points.

My DH earns more than me. We have children, I would definitely be earning more if I didn’t have children as I would be FT (not far off now anyway) and I would likely have gone for another promotion or been available for more overtime. He’s always been supportive of my reduced hours as it allows him to be more available for his work. In fact, I recently suggested increasing my hours and he wasn’t keen as he likes to know I’m available to be the main parent on certain days. We’ll revisit this next year when youngest goes to secondary.

As it is l, I still have a good pension but it would have been better if I’d have worked FT and gained more promotions. I guess I would expect that to be reflected if we divorced (no plans!)

It's simple. Don't get married. It doesn't sound like you're any near ready.

I agree OP. I actually managed to get ex husband to agree not to go after my pensions in our divorce - mine worth £100k to his £10k so I’m very lucky in that regard

i think it’s grossly unfair that divorce can put someone in a better position than if they had never met you. Why should my ex who always worked low paid menial low stress jobs be entitled to a penny of mine that I worked bloody hard for

he was never a STAHP - gave up nothing to support my career

If you’re partner has ‘opted out’ ie us working minimum wage because she can’t be arsed to put more effort into her career, then she is likely to opt out in other ways - of strong mothering, of doing more in the house etc etc. personally I couldn’t respect that.
Opting out needs to be a joint strategic decision eg ‘you back off in your career so you can look after the kids’

The law protects people who haven’t been able to earn as much in marriages (hence pension sharing AND people who sponge off others in a marriage by not lifting a finger

I suggest you don’t get married!!! As it is, if she’s living with you, make sure she’s paying some rent and bills. If not, even without marriage, she could claim money off you as a dependent cohabitee.

You could get a prenuptial. They are increasingly recognised in the UK

But ultimately you made the decision to marry him knowing that. OP, never marry someone you feel you need to ‘settle’ for. Your partner is not a consolation prize or the chicken instead of the beef you wanted. If you want to protect your assets then you don’t get married. Once you strip away the cake and the dress and the flowers, marriage is literally nothing more than a legally binding contract. That is what you are signing — a contract that confers upon both parties rights and responsibilities. Having children traditionally (not always, and less so these days) economically disadvantages the mother. I would not have had children without marriage purely because I am risk averse and was unwilling to be left with very little in the event of a break up. If your finances are of paramount importance then you need to marry someone of equal or greater wealth.

You can protect your pension by not marrying.

The law is there for situations where one partner has a nice job with pension, while the other partner covers home, childcare, works part time or jig style around the children and doesn't have the same option.
Either the pair prioritise paying into private pension for the second partner, or they split the one they have.

DB got divorced in his early 40s. ExW was a SAHM for their 3 kids. He had a decent pension but wanted a clean break (she had an affair and was incapable of sticking to a budget). She got 85% of the house proceeds but none of his pension. Obvs he paid maintenance for the kids despite 50-50 split.

If you’re married and divorce, a pension is an asset that needs to be factored in, but you don’t automatically get half of it.

You can push back on that. 50% isn't automatic. I had a similar situation but managed to push back in mediation and kept my whole pension. I pointed out that his earnings going forward were a lot higher than mine and I had residency of the kids whereas he was free to earn ££££ in his job that included a lot of travel. This meant that he could still build up a good pension, whereas mine was going to be nowhere near as good. You can change the deal a lot from 50% by going hard in mediation.