JoeDavola Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 Apparently this is a landmark case with regards to pension right for cohabiting people. Of course in this case the chap died, but I wonder will it lead to some claims from cohabiting folk who have then split up: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38904268 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Errol Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 14 hours ago, Dorkins said: What's wrong with cohabiting? The way the law exists and the way it is headed, they will equate cohabiting with marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Hovis Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 3 minutes ago, JoeDavola said: Apparently this is a landmark case with regards to pension right for cohabiting people. Of course in this case the chap died, but I wonder will it lead to some claims from cohabiting folk who have then split up: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38904268 There is already a method for vesting your pension rights upon dependents and partners as highlighted below. It's not a secret and they send you the forms. So you can have the same pension rights as a married couple if you are co-habiting if you just fill in that form. He didn't do this so where is the discrimination? And if they are going to allow this then where's the test? Where do you set the bar; do you have to live together for a year, two, ten? What's stopping me and a workmate nominating each other as pension dependents and claiming that we're co-habiting and living in each others' houses alternately so that whichever lives longest gets the benefit of the other's pension? Maybe I can claim to be in a polyamorous relationship with a dozen people at work and then you all get richer every time one dies; sort of a pension tontine but it pays out each time rather than winner takes all. Quote Ms Brewster, a lifeguard from Coleraine, and Lenny McMullan lived together for 10 years and owned their own home. Mr McMullan died suddenly at Christmas in 2009, aged 43, two days after they had got engaged. At the time of his death he had worked for the Northern Ireland public transport service, Translink, for 15 years, paying into an occupational pension scheme administered by the Northern Ireland Local Government Officers' Superannuation Committee (NILGOSC). If they had been married she would have automatically shared the pension that he had built up. Instead, co-habiting partners were only eligible for survivor's allowances in the same way if she had been nominated on a form. However, this form had not been completed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarsEnd Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 17 hours ago, Turned Out Nice Again said: Obviously you'd get slaughtered for that opinion anywhere normal (ie. outside of here or the Manosphere) but different standards apply and everybody know it. Men's Rights Activist Paul Elam articulates this well in his Ten Immutable Laws of Men and Women Not seen that before but I'd have to say I generally agree with most of what he's saying to some degree. Some of what he says I can see/have seen direct parallels in my own life or in the society around me. I find it deeply depressing how powerful the matrix is and how few people are even aware of it. As he points out, if you kick back against it at all, it goes pretty badly for you. I've experienced this first hand many times. For example, whenever I have tried to gently equalise the non-stop flow of my money/resources to women (girlfriends, wives, grown up daughters, mothers), it always subtly goes badly for me, despite there being absolutely no logical reason at all why they should be any more entitled to my money/resources than I'm entitled to theirs. Most men and all women will see you as mean. The women will let you know. The older I get though, the less I care. The only upside to the video is that quite clearly the current situation is not sustainable and ends in collapse. Thank God for that I say if it ends up with something better for men coming out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Hovis Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 Uh-oh. Pensions case won on the basis that you do not have to fill in a nominatisn form if you are unmarried; which discriminates against unmarried co-habiting couples in favour of married couples. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38904268 I wonder what else "discriminates against unmarried co-habiting couples in favour of married couples"? Oh yes, divorce laws. The test is: Quote They would still have to prove that, as a couple, they had been together for two years and were financially interdependent - for example, having a joint bank account. So put that two year date in your diary; after two years for legal purposes you are effectively married. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Hartman Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 Thankfully I've barely got a pot to piss into so should Mrs Hartman decide to bail then she'd be walking away with about as much as she put in (providing the house went 50/50). I wuvs her and I'm pretty sure she wuvs me so it's a bridge I'm hoping I'll never have to cross. I've got a couple of mates who I think are in for some grief later on down the line though. A couple of them do very well and have lovely wives but they have a bit of a penchant for playing Billy Big Potatoes when on a night out and have woken up in places they shouldn't have a few times. I've no doubt that they'll be taken to the cleaners if found out. There are also a couple who married such dragons that any sympathy I have is kind of limited. One was so bad that his best men (he had two) pulled him aside before the big day and flatly told him he was making a big mistake and if he wanted to disappear for a bit they'd help deal with the fallout. He didn't take their advice and his inevitable shafting awaits. All of that said, you never know anyone really until the day you meet them in court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarsEnd Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 19 minutes ago, Sgt Hartman said: All of that said, you never know anyone really until the day you meet them in court. That is so true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpectrumFX Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 4 hours ago, JoeDavola said: Apparently this is a landmark case with regards to pension right for cohabiting people. Of course in this case the chap died, but I wonder will it lead to some claims from cohabiting folk who have then split up: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38904268 Whoever wrote that article doesn't know how public sector pensions work. They say that she's 42, and so is "fighting for a future pension". He was in a local government scheme. That means that she gets 3 times his salary as a lump sum, and an ongoing survivors pension paid straight away (presumably backdated several years in this case). He probably filled in the form and they lost it. That's happened to me, and several other people I know. Luckily I didn't die, so it didn't matter in my case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeDavola Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 1 hour ago, Sgt Hartman said: One was so bad that his best men (he had two) pulled him aside before the big day and flatly told him he was making a big mistake and if he wanted to disappear for a bit they'd help deal with the fallout. He didn't take their advice and his inevitable shafting awaits. I did this with a mate of mine - flatly told him that based on what he'd told me (he was paying a fortune to get married to a woman who hadn't had sex with him for a year and a half), he was mad to consider marrying her, and that he should cut his losses now. Thankfully we're good enough mates that he didn't take offense, and knew that I was being brutally honest because I cared about him. Almost 2 years on, they still haven't had sex and he talks about her with increasing contempt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Hartman Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 17 minutes ago, JoeDavola said: I did this with a mate of mine - flatly told him that based on what he'd told me (he was paying a fortune to get married to a woman who hadn't had sex with him for a year and a half), he was mad to consider marrying her, and that he should cut his losses now. Thankfully we're good enough mates that he didn't take offense, and knew that I was being brutally honest because I cared about him. Almost 2 years on, they still haven't had sex and he talks about her with increasing contempt. Could be a carbon copy of my mate. I wasn't one of the best men but I had told him what I thought of her in no uncertain terms when asked. I had the dubious pleasure of sharing a flat with her during a year at university and a more duplicitous, sociopathic ar*ehole I have yet to meet, she was an absolute nightmare. He's a lovely bloke but he's dropped the ball big time here. He's barely allowed out of the house and when he manages to get to the pub (strict time limit, phone call every half hour) his laments tend to fall on pretty deaf ears. Rabbit in the headlights. Silly boy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habeas Domus Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 4 hours ago, Frank Hovis said: Uh-oh. Pensions case won on the basis that you do not have to fill in a nominatisn form if you are unmarried; which discriminates against unmarried co-habiting couples in favour of married couples. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38904268 The logical next step would be to change the rules so that married couples don't get the benefit unless they also fill in the same form. That way everyone is equal and lots of widows will get squat if/when the paperwork goes missing. Which would save public sector pensions a large fortune. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpectrumFX Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 1 hour ago, Habeas Domus said: The logical next step would be to change the rules so that married couples don't get the benefit unless they also fill in the same form. That way everyone is equal and lots of widows will get squat if/when the paperwork goes missing. Which would save public sector pensions a large fortune. These pensions used to be for men, to support both themselves and their wives in retirement. Now that woman are working too, did anybody think that the benefits wouldn't be cut in half? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkins Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 8 hours ago, Errol said: The way the law exists and the way it is headed, they will equate cohabiting with marriage. Maybe so, but it hasn't happened yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
debtlessmanc Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 My colleague - actually the guy who hired me 23 odd years ago. Was married to the daughter of a seriously wealthy Japanese business man. Former Head of Toyota motor racing, were talking 100's Millions if not billions of dollars. They owned 6 houses in the uk 1 in Japan 2 in the south of France. Got divorced. Only wanted the house he took into the marriage. Nothing else and he is still paying for his daughters education. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canbuywontbuy Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 The trap is the romantic phase. A guy feels loved and validated (and who doesn't want that?) when he has a girlfriend. This is the big big trap. The woman - and it's almost always the woman (99%) of the time - will push for marriage - but the secret is - only if she feels he can be a long-term provider. He thinks it's love. It MIGHT be sometimes, but most of the time, it's all about the money. "Lucky guy" his friends will say, to consolidate the notion he's made the right decision. Not many women marry the homeless guy for his strength of character. They don't even give him eye contact. Anyway, back to our "lucky guy". By the point that marriage is being planned, the man - unbeknownst to himself - is already shackled. He doesn't want to lose his warm fuzzy feelings, so of course will oblige. It's the same with property. He might have an HPC mindset like us, but when the very source of his self-esteem wishes for a house, then he'll "man up" and get himself a mega-mortgage. Now he's balls deep. They may well go onto have kids, and that provides another happiness boost, albeit temporarily. OK, NOW it's when you get to the heart of the matter. Now you find out what your woman is made of. You - the man - are already balls deep committed to this. Your identity is pretty solid at this point: husband, father, provider. You are feeling pretty good about yourself. But nothing stays the same. Your wife is being daily indoctrinated by Loose Women crap TV, her toxic friends and Facebook telling her that her life is already humdrum. God help you if one of her friends gets a divorce. That is a hammer blow to your own marriage. God forbid you lose your job. For her, it's easy to formulate the notion that "the spark has gone". She will realise from other divorced woman, that life can be good post-divorce (for women). She might even realise she can do a "parentectomy" (remove the father from the house) while not losing any drop in income. Move in some new guy to regenerate her own warm fuzzies. These are possibilities that exist in her head for years, decades. For many marriages, it's simply a matter of time. Then of course, there's the surrogate husband - the government - to help support her. Society lies so badly about marriage and cohabiting. Love is nothing but a chemical reaction that is short lived. Also, many couples lie - they keep up appearances, giving the false impression that they "got lucky". The real winners are the ones who can live with themselves, and don't have this burning need to cohabit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 On 06/02/2017 at 11:01 PM, whitevanman said: The married men I know are at enormous risk if their marriages go wrong. They end up with lots of people dependant on them and the rug can be pulled out from under them at any time. What I don't understand is why it is so often the women who initiate divorce. Who wants a needy, menopausal woman with kids and a bad shopping habit? The world is full of lonely divorced women. Because last time they were single the were in their early twenties and constantly being hit upon in bars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crashmonitor Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 One thing that puzzles me about this. Surely if you die before a local authority scheme has reached pensionable age, then the underlying value of fund is paid into the Estate as a lump sum? Just wondering, because my partner has one of these gold plated schemes and I was always under the impression, should the worst happen, it would be paid into the Estate and distributed according to the he will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpectrumFX Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 1 minute ago, crashmonitor said: One thing that puzzles me about this. Surely if you die before a local authority scheme has reached pensionable age, then the underlying value of fund is paid into the Estate as a lump sum? Just wondering, because my partner has one of these gold plated schemes and I was always under the impression, should the worst happen, it would be paid into the Estate and distributed according to the he will. No. Typically there is a lump sum of 3 times current salary, and then for a spouse or notified partner a survivors pension paid immediately, and until death. The lump sum is technically not automatic, but at the discretion of the scheme. This is actually a work around to stop it being part of the estate for inheritance tax purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crashmonitor Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 13 minutes ago, SpectrumFX said: No. Typically there is a lump sum of 3 times current salary, and then for a spouse or notified partner a survivors pension paid immediately, and until death. The lump sum is technically not automatic, but at the discretion of the scheme. This is actually a work around to stop it being part of the estate for inheritance tax purposes. So no notified partner, you lose the lot currently? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onlooker Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 15 hours ago, Dorkins said: Maybe so, but it hasn't happened yet. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38904268 Why do these things always happen in the public sector, with Joe taxpayer picking up the bill. I guess in the public sector, there is no push back, and its not real money anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpectrumFX Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 46 minutes ago, crashmonitor said: So no notified partner, you lose the lot currently? Well it used to depend upon the scheme. Following the court case it would appear that if there is a partner then the notification process is no longer required. Fit the moment I'd be tempted to register anyway for peace of mind. If somebody with no partner and no children dies, then there is no payout to the estate. These pensions were set up for the recipient and their dependents. No dependents = no pension. There are special arrangements for children, but unlike partners they only get a pension until their majority rather than for the rest of their days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crashmonitor Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 3 minutes ago, SpectrumFX said: Well it used to depend upon the scheme. Following the court case it would appear that if there is a partner then the notification process is no longer required. Fit the moment I'd be tempted to register anyway for peace of mind. If somebody with no partner and no children dies, then there is no payout to the estate. These pensions were set up for the recipient and their dependents. No dependents = no pension. There are special arrangements for children, but unlike partners they only get a pension until their majority rather than for the rest of their days. No wonder they are so gold plated, confiscation of a lifetime of contributions of a single person to enrich a married couple or a single survivor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatmanfilms Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 1 hour ago, crashmonitor said: One thing that puzzles me about this. Surely if you die before a local authority scheme has reached pensionable age, then the underlying value of fund is paid into the Estate as a lump sum? Just wondering, because my partner has one of these gold plated schemes and I was always under the impression, should the worst happen, it would be paid into the Estate and distributed according to the he will. The last thing you would want is that to happen as it would be subject to IHT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpectrumFX Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 4 minutes ago, crashmonitor said: No wonder they are so gold plated, confiscation of a lifetime of contributions of a single person to enrich a married couple or a single survivor. Even then the pensions weren't affordable. Hence the push to career average salary and later retirement. In my youth I saw people retire at 50 on a full enhanced pension of half their salary indexed to RPI 'til death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatmanfilms Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 1 hour ago, crashmonitor said: So no notified partner, you lose the lot currently? It's all at the discretion of the Pension trustees, form or no form, so likely to not be an issue if you were in a long term live in relationship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.