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!
versus earlierNot 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.
If the same amount is payable from the same date to a person of a different age, can you explain how that does "not necessarily" change the liability please?2. As the benefits allocated to the spouse are a subset of the benefits payable to the pension holder, they become payable at exactly the same time as the holder's benefit.
Totally agree.However, this can happen anyway.......
Not sure if I totally agree here - I was reacting to "I've no idea what point you're trying to make". I would respectfully suggest the point I was trying to make wasn't that obscure!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!
Thank you!Good post, Right Winger
Because the end date is the member's death, not the spouse's death. (Survivor's pension, as I said, is obviously different.) So same total amount, same start date, same end date = same liability.If the same amount is payable from the same date to a person of a different age, can you explain how that does "not necessarily" change the liability please?
Let's agree to differ!Not sure if I totally agree here - I was reacting to "I've no idea what point you're trying to make". I would respectfully suggest the point I was trying to make wasn't that obscure!
None of that is clear. You don’t seem to be able to understand the simple logic at play here.What is clear is that there are loads of gaps in relation to our combined knowledge of PAOs.
What's clear is that the liability of the scheme changes following a PAO
What's clear is that this liability could increase following a PAO
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!
Ah - I see, I see now. Thank you. I've decided to read up on this stuff. Well, I never......Because the end date is the member's death, not the spouse's death. (Survivor's pension, as I said, is obviously different.) So same total amount, same start date, same end date = same liability.
I agree to agree to differ, Right Winger, but have you no sympathy for my position at all at all?You don’t seem to be able to understand the simple logic at play here.
Scenario 2)
A & B are divorced. A was entitled to €C at retirement and until death. But now, at retirement age, A gets 80% of €C and B gets 20% of €C until death.
Scenario 1 is a ‘win’ for the Trustees/Pension Scheme. Paying 80% plus 20% until the respective recipients die is better than paying 100% and then 50%.
A dies first, you’re better off.
B dies first, you’re better off.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?