Army pension

I haven't looked at the actual discussions from the time, but I suspect that, as with most things, the full extent of the potential complications didn't become apparent until it was all put into practice.

It was probably also a case of something being better than nothing, and rather than wait for ever to devise the perfect system, they got this going as is. There had been years of campaigning about the whole pensions issue before the present law came in as it was.

Is this where the rot set in to pension sharing?

www.publications.parliament.uk/cgi-bin/n...hlighter_first_match

Q to Lord Justice Thorpe
103. Could I just ask one more question before we move on about your Advisory Group. I see that its membership is from the judiciary, the legal profession and I think academic lawyers, in other words all lawyers. I know less about the system than you do but what I do learn in my constituency is from people who come before the courts, husbands, wives, others with a view about it. Have you thought of having any citizens or consumers on your committee because lawyers see things in certain ways, do they not?"
Q to Thorpe LJ :
106. It might be, for example, that if one took a random sample of people who had been through the court system in a divorce situation and said "Did this make sense to you? Did you understand what was going on? Could it have been better for you, as it were, as a consumer of the legal process?", I just think in all areas of public policy that is helpful.
(Lord Justice Thorpe) Extremely helpful. If we had research material of that sort available to us we would have welcomed it. It seems to us that there is very little relevant social research and we have no resources and no time in which to look at that. The social policy issues will have to be addressed by legislators. I think the best we can do is to point out "here is the social policy choice for you".

Judging by the rest of his remarks the pensions industry had a walkover?

"Pension pre split £640 after tax until 55yrs then index linked

Pension post split £320 after tax etc.." by Phastasphuk

It would be interesting to know if your wife will get £320 as well when she retires,
or will she get a lot less than that because women live longer? How can the forces
justify giving women less anyway when they don't get the pension until they are 65?
Suppose men die on average at age 75, then the pension is in payment for 20 years
(75 minus 55). Now suppose women die on average at age 85 then the pension is still
in payment for 20 years because the woman does not get it until she is 65
(85 minus 65).

Ref the age of claiming the Spouses pension, see earlier posts.

You can claim it earlier

hi

I found this extremely good reading I thought


www.ancillaryactuary.co.uk/


Dido xx

Re my earlier post and that of jakeblues68, I realise that the pension credit menber
can now take the pension earlier, but my understanding is that the pension is
calculated on the basis of 65 and then substantially reduced for paying earlier.
So my question still stands. What logic makes the forces pay a lower pension to
wives,if in fact, they do?

I have recently seen a Solicitor to start Divorce Proceedings and as my STBX is receiving his Army pension now when we
get the CETV from the Army we wil have no need to get a Actuarys report. She is also concerned that he is bust speeding his lump sum and there will be none left. Surely the lump sum is taken into account when everything is divided wether he has spent it or not he has received it.