Army pension

Hi Phastasphuk,

As always, you make several very good points. I jumped headlong into the trap of looking at pensions in isolation. The FMH, SM & CM issues are very important and should always influence the decisions, particularly when the pension is in payment or is likely to be in the near future.

You rightly suggest, there is no such thing as an infinite put to draw on. For what it is worth, my view is that many pension-sharing orders should start from the objective of achieving equality of pension income in retirement then adjust to allow for any other amounts, such as SM & CM that the pension owner will be paying. It is not rocket science but it is not very often done. This is possibly because it is seen by some lawyers as being tooooooo difficult; which it is not. It is just as easy to allow for the fact that one party will keep the FMH as part of the settlement.

As my actuarial colleagues often have to remind me, actuaries thrive on information, if they are told what to take into account they are more than happy to oblige

P

Phastasphuk wrote:

Peter,
I see where you are coming from but there is the other side of the coin to be considered,so we are looking at equality of income not on a monthly basis but over a projected life time (i think ?)
So my pension would be reduced not only by say 50% but also a further percentage to give my ex the same amount at 65 plus an amount to compensate her for the fact that i get my pension before her.
I would now be getting next to no pension(as it reduces at point of Consent Order) with only index linking to increase it. She now has from 65yrs more pension than me plus the increase in value of the FMH and SM.
Mmm seems fair to me...Not!
Plus less available for CM.

From what you have written it does not seem fair short term because the pension would be in payment to the solider but if they was to say not draw it till the same time as the spouse and say they saved all up would it not then be worth the same just trying to find a fair way of looking at the differences in the same 25 year period.

If the solider was to save the money having it now and say the spouse having it in 25 years for example

Would not both pensions be worth roughly the same at 65

or am I just looking at it from the wrong point of veiw and need a reality check.


dido xx

Peter@BDM wrote:

Hi Phastasphuk,

As always, you make several very good points. I jumped headlong into the trap of looking at pensions in isolation. The FMH, SM & CM issues are very important and should always influence the decisions, particularly when the pension is in payment or is likely to be in the near future

P

Hi while I do agree the The FMH, SM issues are very important and should always influence the decisions,
I do not agree that CM should may be i am talking out of turn but that would be penalizing one parent normally the mother for having responsibility of the child when in fact children are the responsibility of both parents and as such should be paid for by both .
So in which case the CM should not be an issue when dividing assets equally especially a pension as normally its because we have children that many woman lose out pension wise .

Sorry guys but I dont think CM should be taken into account only because is is to benefit the child and not the mother .

But if I understood the reasonings behind including CM then may be I could then understand why this may be taken into account xxxx

Didoxx

For "Spousal Maintenance until you take your pension credit pension" scenario Dj - as a precaution make sure the other side are required to predict your income at the date SM cessation is proposed.
SM is considered to be for joint lives unless it can be demonstrated by the payer that the recipient can at some future point adjust without "undue hardship" to receiving no SM .
From personal experience if such a solution is suggested - for your longer term security/fairness of outcome/sanity the payer must be asked to predict the payee's income at the date when SM is proposed to cease.

maggie wrote:

For "Spousal Maintenance until you take your pension credit pension" scenario Dj - as a precaution make sure the other side are required to predict your income at the date SM cessation is proposed.
SM is considered to be for joint lives unless it can be demonstrated by the payer that the recipient can at some future point adjust without "undue hardship" to receiving no SM .
From personal experience if such a solution is suggested - for your longer term security/fairness of outcome/sanity the payer must be asked to predict the payee's income at the date when SM is proposed to cease.

Hi Maggie & Phastasphuk

Thank you guys for this but I am not sure that i will indeed receive SM because he may not have the ability to pay but if I am lucky enough to get it awarded to meI will remember what you have told me thank you

I really do not want an attachment order and I dont think I will even if SM is not awarded because as I have said long term I believe it will not benefit me


dido xx

didojane,
the reason CM is an issue is because it is calculated on income incuding the pension, less pension = less income = less CM / SM

Phastasphuk wrote:

didojane,
the reason CM is an issue is because it is calculated on income incuding the pension, less pension = less income = less CM / SM

Hi totally get it now I was thinking that may be it meant a reduced payment of pension for the spouse because that payment was being made by the solider 4 say X amount of years sorry xxxxx:blush:

Dido xx