Do You Think That Civil Partners And Those In Same Sex Marriages Should Receive The Same Pension Rights As Straight Couples?

[sp1814]

This has always been the difference, but now it looks like a precedent has been set.

Summary:

If a straight couple marry in 2017, and one partner dies, the surviving partner is eligible for the entire pension of the spouse.

Same sex couple marry in 2017, and the same thing happens, only pension contributions since 2005 are payable.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/gay-army-officer-husband-pension-rights-john-walker-supreme-court-win-mod-same-sex-marriage-rights-a7836666.html

I've always thought this was a bit mental. What do you think?

[DTCwordfan]

yep, gness hear you and conceptually it is right. However, my sister and her hetero partner do not have the same rights in inheritance to the next generation or whoever, as they have not married.....32 years they have been together....and this inequality is not right.

If we are going to have equality in relationship and inheritance, it really has to be across the board...M-F. F-M. M-M, M-M, F-F or F-F have I missed any other combo....?

[EcclesCake]

Mamya, I may be wrong but have more than a sneaking position that I am not wrong.

[Mamyalynne]

Not my place to convince anyone, just making sure no mistakes were made.


Sorry for the slight derailment SP.

[jackthehat]

With all due respect, dtc, if your sister and her beau had wanted to marry at any time over their 32 years they could have done...

Mrs JtH and I have only been able to legalise our relationship since 2005......and we have just clocked up our 27th Anniversary.

[DTCwordfan]

true jth, but the equality rules should be the same for whatever combination....

[Hymie]

Although the ruling might seem unfair – prior to 2005, pension schemes could not have reasonably anticipated that they would have an additional liability to same sex married couples.

Pension schemes would know the approximate percentage of surviving spouses to whom they would pay-out, and make provision accordingly.
Now adding surviving spouses of same sex couples, they could reasonably argue that the pension scheme was not funded for such liabilities before 2005 and therefore they should be excluded (in fairness to all scheme members).

[jno]

not me, Mamya, though obviously I wouldn't want him to encounter the same fate as any other members who have transgressed on this topic.

DT, I think there is a legitimate (though not necessarily good) distinction to be made between those who have registered their relationship and those who haven't. By so registering, you can invoke the protection of the law. It's a matter of choice; from the official point of view, your sister has made hers.

The actual difficulty, I suppose, is to do with proving the partnership exists when you've decided to avoid the formalities.

[kvalidir]

Clearly everyone should be treated equally, that is gay, straight, bi, married, civil partnered, cohabiting- should all have the same pension and inheritance rights, no-one should be preferably treated.

[sp1814]

Hymie

Thanks for you input there. That's a very salient point (that pension schemes wouldn't have been scoped to pay out for pensions for same-sex marriages). I just question how much of an extra burden it could be with the relatively small number of same-sex spouses.

[gness]

Well, DT......they have a choice if they want to secure a pension...or inheritance....and it will be very easy for them...there won't have to be threads and discussions about it, will there?

[Old_Geezer]

I think unmarried couples should too. The issue is whether you have a partner not whether one has gone through ceremonies or whatever.

That said I'm unconvinced that the pension of a dead individual should be transferable anyway.

[woofgang]

as I said earlier, Its my understanding that many work based pensions (not the state pension) where the employee has contributed has the facility for the employee to name someone to inherit a percentage of their pension entitlement....so surely those pensions, at least, must have calculated on the basis of the pension’s not ending when the employee dies?

[woofgang]

OG, I don’t understand why you don’t think that private pensions should be inheritable by a spouse? So far as the state pension, as i understand it, the new rules won’t allow a spouse to receive pension based on the late spouse’s contributions, but when DH and I were working and making our financial decisions, it was certainly the case the we, and many others, made their life decisions based on the rules as they were then. To move the goalposts as has been done is both unkind and unfair.

[mikey4444]

BA for kvalidir !

There are some appalling posts on this thread. This isn't an issue about whether we approve of gay people or not....its about the inherent lack fairness in the system.

Crapatcrypics post as 20:41 is unbelievably crass and ill thought-out, and Hazi's directly afterwards is even worse.

Shame on you both.

[DTCwordfan]

Their choice, gness, not yours, not mine.

Personally, I think that there should be a minimum qualification time to transferability of inheritance kicks in....how long that should be, I don't know - 10 years, 7 years?? 32 years though? However, in their case, they probably will avoid it through declaring inheritance through one of their various countries of residence.

[woofgang]

Surely if its a private pension....ie not state pension.....its up to the employer to set the terms of the inheritance within equality law? I am not sure why people think that there should be a "years of marriage" requirement or anything else? Its a part of the pay and conditions package and companies offer the packages that will attract the people they need and that the company finances will support.

[murraymints]

yes..

[Hazi-Hammenuhoth]

In response to Mikey and others, why attack my post? I simply answered the questioned based on my convictons and beliefs. Why be intolerant?

[naomi24]

Perhaps the simplest way would be for the ‘pensioner’ to nominate the beneficiary. That way, straight, gay, married, unmarried, friends, siblings, etc., etc., there would be no argument. I don’t really see why formal marriage or civil partnership should be the deciding factor.

[gness]

Don't know what you're on about really, DT.......but I think you may have overlooked premature death?