Objection to Spouse's and Children's Pension Contribution

K

kmpq

Guest
I have been working as a primary teacher for over ten years, having qualified through the postgraduate route. I have no spouse and no children and this situation is not going to change. Why am I obliged to contribute 1.5% of my salary to the Spouse's and Children's Pension as I will never benefit from it and do not wish to contribute to it? I presume there is no way that I can get out of it or be refunded for contributions made already?
 
We all contribute to things which we may not benefit from ourselves. Think it is a requirement for all to pay this in the public sector.
 
Hi there,
Im in the same boat. I working in the public service for 14 years, and am single, with no dependents (apart from two cats), and Im paying Widows and Orphans too? Im not sure anything will be done though, it would be a mammoth job...
 
I am the same but I think I remember reading somewhere that when you retuire, if you have not had any spouse/children your contributions are refunded. I can't remember where I read it though - sorry!
 
gravitygirl said:
I am the same but I think I remember reading somewhere that when you retuire, if you have not had any spouse/children your contributions are refunded. I can't remember where I read it though - sorry!
Click to expand...
No, you don't get them back if you retire single, on the theory that you could still marry and your new spouse would be entitled.

The only dispensation if you are single on retirement, is that if you owe them contributions, say to cover career break or some other period of non payment, then they won't look for you to pay up. But what you have paid, they keep.
 
Well that might be of some use alright. I must admit I can't really see how is is justifiable to make it compulsory for someone in my position to contribute to a pension scheme like this. While I accept the earlier point that we all contribute to things we do not benefit from, the Spouse's and Children's Pension seems to be aimed at catering specifically for 'my' spouse and children (if I had any). To me it seems comparable, to some extent, to being required to pay car insurance even if I didn't have a car. While I am sure the car owning population would be delighted if my insurance payment benefited them in the case of a car crash, why should I have to contribute to a specific expense, which they have incurred as a result of their decision to own a car, while I have decided not to?!
 
Yes that might be a good idea. Probably unlikely to get very far with it, but worth a try anyway. Thanks.
 
If you are a member of a public sector superannuation scheme then it is compulsory that you contribute to the spouses and childrens.

Remember that the benefits of most public service superannuations schemes far outweigh the accumulated contributions.

The schemes apply equally whether you have many children or none or whether you have a spouse or not.

These schemes were originally called widows and children's and covered all members in the unlikely but tragic event of a death in service.

The risk was shared among all the members of the scheme regardless of whether they could potentially benefit or not.
 
You could try speaking to the Equality Authority and/or taking a case via the Equality Tribunal, on the grounds that you are discriminated against based on family status. I don't think you'll get very far, but there is no harm in testing the system anyway.
 
Complainer said:
You could try speaking to the Equality Authority and/or taking a case via the Equality Tribunal, on the grounds that you are discriminated against based on family status. I don't think you'll get very far, but there is no harm in testing the system anyway.
Click to expand...

Apart from clogging up our legal system obviously
 
DB74 said:
Apart from clogging up our legal system obviously
Click to expand...
It is far from obvious that taking a case is 'clogging up our legal system'. The same arguement could be made about pretty much every single civil case that goes to court, where both sides are convinced they have a good chance of winning.
 
Here's an excerpt from my pension scheme faq:
"Are my contributions refunded if I remain unmarried throughout the time that the Scheme applies to me?
Yes (less an appropriate deduction for income tax)."

sounds vaguely hopeful :)
 
gravitygirl said:
Here's an excerpt from my pension scheme faq:
"Are my contributions refunded if I remain unmarried throughout the time that the Scheme applies to me?
Yes (less an appropriate deduction for income tax)."

sounds vaguely hopeful :)
Click to expand...

Sounds better than mine so!

Which scheme are you part of? A public sector one, or the original pre 1984 Civil service scheme?

Before then, it was optional to join, so you could get a refund. Since '84 the main CS scheme hasn't had that option.
 
battybrennan said:
at some stage a few years ago --maybe 7--can't remember a form came around with the option to opt out of this contribution. I signed it and sent it back to the department of ed. however I noticed it still came out of my salary so I rang about it and was told that even though I've opted out I still have to pay in 'till I retire and then I'll get back my contributions. This was confirmed for me by a Cornmarket person recently enough.
Click to expand...

Do you think it could have been a bit more than 7 years ago?? I have been teaching for over ten years and I don't remember ever getting such a form. The choice of opting out would have been very welcome! I wouldn't really mind having to make contributions if I had the prospect of getting some return on retirement.
 
gravitygirl said:
Here's an excerpt from my pension scheme faq:
"Are my contributions refunded if I remain unmarried throughout the time that the Scheme applies to me?
Yes (less an appropriate deduction for income tax)."
Click to expand...
Is it a straight cash refund, or is there some interest or investment growth over time? If they took a hundred quid off you 20 years ago, there is not much point in getting that cash back. You really want to see some compounded growth.
 
Widows and spouse refund

If you belong to a religious order you are entitled to a FULL refund of the "Spouse and children's" contribution .It seems unfair, as these people have no mortgages to pay , have communal cars , have all the advantages of living in communities, do not have to pay for care if they are ill . A person living alone have expenses that they cannot share and the stress of living alone .
I have been told that someone did take a case to the European court and won his case on the ground of discrimination . Does anyone know who this person is . I believe he was a secondary teacher in Dublin.
 
Last edited:
Complainer said:
Is it a straight cash refund, or is there some interest or investment growth over time? If they took a hundred quid off you 20 years ago, there is not much point in getting that cash back. You really want to see some compounded growth.
Click to expand...

Why would there be interest? It's not as if there's a fund there and the money is invested. It's spent the second it's collected.

If there is a refund, it would be reimbursed less tax.


Steven
www.bluewaterfp.ie
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top