Right Winger
Registered User
- Messages
- 293
...but assembling the "wisdom of crowds" adds value.What is clear is that there are loads of gaps in relation to our combined knowledge of PAOs.
Not necessarily. As @NoRegretsCoyote has explained, the liability is still based on the member's age, salary and service. The PAO simply reallocates this liability. The other spouse doesn't get a separate pension, but rather a share of the member's pension, paid directly to her/him rather than the member. When the member dies, the surviving spouse gets the survivor's pension. (Or shares it with the new spouse, if the PAO so specifies.What's clear is that the liability of the scheme changes following a PAO
It is indeed possible (and likely!) that the survivor's element of the pension liability could change following a change of spouse to a younger model. However, that can happen anyway following death of a spouse, or depending on the rules of the scheme, on the nomination of the beneficiary by the member. It doesn't necessarily need a PAO to give it effect. This is a normal hazard for pension trustees and is small in the overall scheme of things.What's clear is that this liability could increase following a PAO
Telling people who are trying to answer your question that they're "struggling with" stuff isn't really very nice. You might like to reconsider!What's clear is that your principle is flawed
I'm honestly struggling to understand what part of the above you are struggling with but I'll leave you at it!