Mail: Gov Refuses To Axe Dickensian Rules Forcing Army Widows To Choose Love/Pension

"Military widows are having to choose between love and their pensions because ministers refuse to axe ‘Dickensian’ rules governing their income.

Campaigners are furious the Government has rejected proposals to relax the system which forces a bereaved wife to give up her pension if she enters a new relationship."

Government still forces army widows to choose between new love and their pension | Mail Online
​

​

 

Oooh. This could be a great thread. The big question being: Why would a widow still require a pension once they're back on their feet and in another combined income household?

 

They wouldn't, unless they marry a bum. Maybe they should base it on household income.


Posted from the Navy Net mobile app (Android / iOS)

 

Love the paradox with the use of "Dickensian" to describe the dilemma of a widow potentially losing her current pension, based on a Victorian concept that a wife is dependent on her husband. The irony is the insistence that a widow continues to receive her husband's pension - and is therefore dependant on him, alive or dead.

(FYI: No longer referred to as "Widow's Pension"; now called "Survivor's Benefits" as they can be transferred to children and other relatives, not necessarily the deceased's partner)

 

The FPS perspective:

Bad tidings and No Comfort or Joy this Christmas - Forces Pension Society News

Widows Pensions for Life - A Statement by the Forces Pension Society - Forces Pension Society News

 

Surprising to see so many actually siding with HMG.

 

To be fair disagreeing with absolutely everything the government come up with, regardless of what it is is an automatic reaction for many people.

Those people are quimwits.

 

Indeed MLP, the amount of people guilty of that particular peccadillo is absolutely ridiculous.

 

I don't see any problem with a widow loosing her pension on remarriage. This is the norm for most occupations.
I remember paying in an extra sum in either the late 70s or early 80s to ensure that on my death my wife would be entitled to half my service pension.Money well spent.
However if I pop my clogs first and she then re-marries she looses the pension.
Neither my wife or I have a problem with this.

 

I'd have thought there was a simple solution for any widow wishing to cling on to her Survivor's Benefit is to remain officially single.

 

I would say I am on the side of HMG on this one but only just. If a widow that was in receipt of her husband's pension won the lottery, and thus no longer depended on the pension to get by, should payments then cease?

 

Were the pensions contributory.

 

I would say not as that would effectively be means testing which is not the issue - it's one's status regarding having a lump thrown up one.

Good point from MLP. I usually disagree with the government because I don't agree with them but this looks a fair call to me. Erm, apart from the fact that they shouldn't exist of course.

 

Pompey News: "Rules ‘Discriminate’ Against Armed Forces Widows, Say Peers"

"Lords attacked the government over ‘unfair and discriminatory’ treatment of military widows.

Lord Craig of Radley and former first sea lord Admiral Lord Alan West criticised ministers for depriving widows who choose to remarry or cohabit of their service widow’s pension."

Rules ?discriminate? against armed forces widows, say peers - Portsmouth News

Lords Hansard text for*21 Jan 2014 (pt 0001)

 

If a Widow remarries she is no longer a widow ! Therefore The pension would not exist ?

 

because their husbands earned it. He would have had his rate of pay lowered by around 8% for all his service to pay for his pension and a widows pension. Do civil servants, police, fire brigade, local aurthority workers have it done to them?

 

Exactly. Their husbands earned it, not them. I appreciate that losing your significant other is traumatic and the provision of a death pension helps when you are bringing up kids alone etc. However, as for the rule being 'Dickensian' that statement is contradictory. What is Dickensian is the argument that widows need that money to exist and the assumption all widows are women. They've lost their own argument right there. Women have jobs these days and can even vote after all. Provide for yourself.

If you're at the point where you are ready to move on with your life and enter another relationship you then become a normal household again like any other. Money that you haven't earned should not be a factor. You've moved on, you're back on your feet, you don't need it.

If people are honestly of the opinion that keeping that money is more important than any potential relationship and they are being 'forced to choose' as they put it, then they're a bit of a twat. "Sorry, I can't marry you as I'll lose this money I'm getting" lovely.

 

Hehe, should be choose love or get married. Not sure one exists if the other does!

:laughing1:

 

Kept out of this one for at time!!! But you would not get married, and loose your Pension , would you?????? Just live together. Like most of the single parent Mothers do today .. Still claiming all the benefits, that goes with that status. You know you would, makes sense

 

Depends on your outlook. If you're a money hungry, materialistic shit then fair enough.