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.

I didn’t make pension contributions when on mat leave. I had to work part time because full time childcare for two was more than I would have got paid. i had to work part time to cover school stuff, holidays etc in the primary school years.
I did all these willingly at the time, because we were a family.

Now I’m about to be divorced, with only 15 years till retirement. I’m too old to build my career in the way he did. I have a pension but it is nothing like his.

Why shouldn’t I have a share of his? If we hadn’t had children we would have been more closely matched.

In hindsight, I should have made sure that my contributions matched his, but I never went into marriage thinking it was going to end.

Anyone who feels they are 'settling' should not be getting married.

If you are marrying with the expectation of divorce, don't get married. You might think it's unfair but it doesn't matter. The law is set up as an arrangement of joint assets and finances until you die. That's the point of it. You are creating what is essentially a financial unit.

On a practical level I've never understood how life works when married people ringfence their own cash - are you going on a cruise while she's in a caravan in Bognor? - but the main thing is that it doesn't matter how you manage it or whether it's fair, you both own everything.

getting married is settling in every sense of the word.

You date and finally settle for the right person.
what is surprising here?

Settling down, yes, but not settling for. Settling for implies you are making do with something you don't really think is good enough for you.

This is precisely what I mean.

Could you be mixing up ‘settling for’ and ‘settling down with’, OP? They mean very different things.

It’s worth remembering that marriage isn’t obligatory, and it’s not unfair if you know what you’re both agreeing to going in. If you want the benefits that marriage confers, there are risks you take. If you assess those risks and judge them to be too high, you’re free to not marry and accept whatever the consequences of that decision are for you. (Plenty of people live quite happily having never married.)

@m

Yes in hindsight as the Main earner with the highest earning potential i shouldn’t have got married but then i had traditional views about wanting to raise a family as a married unit. At the time we married our earnings weren’t so different but when my career took off he sat back and watched and enjoyed the benefits. He could have chose to maximise his earnings but chose not to….all things I hadn’t expected from him before we got married. There were no red flags so to speak that he didn’t have the same attitude to career/wanting to better himself and his family

it worked out fine for me in that I have kept all my pensions but I feel sorry for those that hadn’t been as fortunate - me ex has said several years down the line he wouldn’t have agreed to it now.

Whether or not you as a man or woman get to keep all your pension in divorce is not a moral issue. All marital assets are shared. Why would they not be?

It is dependant on whether joint decisions regarding child care (including care of disabled children of the marriage) and ability to accrue pension and future earning potential and ability to accrue pension which obviously involves length of marriage and age would advantage or disadvantage one party on divorce.

Especially where one party would be reliant on state support as a result of a settlement that allowed the higher earner to keep income and pension where the other party is unable to work due to caring responsibilities, past decisions, age etc.

marriage and raising DC is about recognising the value of different contributions beyond monetary value. If you can’t do that just have functional relationships based on financial principles.

If he paid less into his pension, he would have had more to put into other outgoings.

OP - I don't think you should marry.

Totally agree with what you say.
Unfortunately sahp who gave their working partner no choice in the matter also get the same consideration

In your circumstances I would not get married.

In her circumstances I would insist on marriage.

Are you honestly not aware of the many, many women who reduce their career, earning and pension capacities to raise children in the understanding that they benefit from the husbands freedom to lean into his career. Directly or indirectly both parties have contri used towards the pension asset.

I bet OP is a bloke who splits everything 50/50 on a date. Including the car parking.

The gender pay gap exists, it isn't just about maternity leave. I expect your ex to have a different version of events/mental load/division of labour vs pay and free time.

Your current squeeze shouldn't be "settled for". (You didn't accidentally use that phrase instead of "settle down".) If you don't want children together and/or she's aware you don't want to marry, and you can happily use the phrase "settled for", in reference to her, in front of her; carry on.

I anticipate her thread in six years' time.

I agree. It’s not fair. I’ve been paying into my pension for 20+ years. I got my job because I studied hard and got a good degree, and then went on to study for a professional qualification - mostly in my own time (stayed up late at night, studied long hours etc). Meanwhile, my DH dossed around at uni, spent too much time playing computer games and ends up with a diploma and ended up with a job where he’s paid a lot less as a result and I have to make up the difference by paying for all the kids clothes, school trips, extra curricular activities etc. He’s only just started paying into a pension and he’s in his 40s. I’m well aware that if we were to divorce, he would have a claim on my pension. How is that fair?

Because you are legally promising to commit to someone "until death do us part" so if you part that needs to be recalibrated

Yes, like alcohol .

What needs to be recalibrated? I’ve already paid way more of my fair share.

Don't get married if you don't want to split everything you have.

I disagree. Logically there’s no difference between a spouse who has not paid into a pension because they were a SAHP, and one who hasn’t because they’ve put their earnings towards other things. Unless those other things are pissing it away down the pub or gambling, which would be another matter, they will be deemed to have contributed to the assets of the marriage through their earnings, which they obviously have.

Meanwhile, my DH dossed around at uni, spent too much time playing computer games and ends up with a diploma and ended up with a job where he’s paid a lot less as a result and I have to make up the difference by paying for all the kids clothes, school trips, extra curricular activities etc. He’s only just started paying into a pension and he’s in his 40s. I’m well aware that if we were to divorce, he would have a claim on my pension. How is that fair?

If only you’d chosen a more worthy partner.

Good post!