Jump to content

A convenient marriage


Recommended Posts

I am against marriage.. I don't believe that a piece of paper makes a difference... EXCEPT in this case... I thought this was awesome...

 

In Canada... we have Registered Pension Plan through our work plan... I just heard (yesterday) that 2 people got married just for that... Let me explain.

 

These 2 people were best friends... no children... in their late 40s... worked all their life for the gov't ... have a nice pension plan. BUT if they don't get married before they take their pension... and they die, the pension plan is not passed to children, if they are adults, or any family member...it goes back in the gov't funds.

 

These 2 decided to get married so that if one dies, the other will get a nice pension... they don't want it wasted...

 

Here's the hick... they each live separately... in different part of town... they have each their house, their life... they just married for the convenience...so that the other best friend would get the estate.... I don't even think they sleep together... LOL

 

Good idea... if you don't want your estate to go to the gov't ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting.

 

I think it will only work if 2 people really know each other... they were best friends so that's good.

 

I don't think I could go through it if it was just a friend, then again there isn't such a thing in Malaysia so I am safe!! ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Good idea... if you don't want your estate to go to the gov't ...

 

...in this country, married couples enjoy all the rights of survivorship. However, the Social Security system caps payments on a per-household basis. Therefore, if both parties worked and contributed, a maximum for couples. If both worked and contributed, one of them could actually have their payments reduced because of a marriage. As a consequence, many serniors who have become widowed now simply live together rather than marrying.

 

It's just in the past few years that our "enlightened" government did away with the "marriage penalty" regarding federal income taxes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Author
...in this country, married couples enjoy all the rights of survivorship. However, the Social Security system caps payments on a per-household basis. Therefore, if both parties worked and contributed, a maximum for couples. If both worked and contributed, one of them could actually have their payments reduced because of a marriage. As a consequence, many serniors who have become widowed now simply live together rather than marrying.

 

It's just in the past few years that our "enlightened" government did away with the "marriage penalty" regarding federal income taxes.

 

I don't know all the details.. I just heard they married for financial reasons... they've been friends all their life...

 

I don't blame people who do that really... why would you leave your estate for the gov't instead of a good friend... especially if you don,t have children...

 

I guess different countries have differents laws.. I don't know all the details for survivor's benefits...

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know all the details.. I just heard they married for financial reasons... they've been friends all their life...

 

I don't blame people who do that really... why would you leave your estate for the gov't instead of a good friend... especially if you don,t have children...

 

I guess different countries have differents laws.. I don't know all the details for survivor's benefits...

 

I'm not so fond of any government that I wish to leave it the fruits of roughly 45 years of my labors.

 

It was also only recently (about seven years ago) that the U.S. Supreme Court abolished my state's "source tax" which, since my wife and I both have state pensions, would have taxed them no matter what state we actually lived in. Once I retire (a bit over two years) we're moving to the south-east to a state that doesn't tax ANY government pension, regardless of its origin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh? What you be smokin'? Go back and review the survivor benefits of your RPP package. There's usually a beneficiary/estate clause.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not so fond of any government that I wish to leave it the fruits of roughly 45 years of my labors.

 

It was also only recently (about seven years ago) that the U.S. Supreme Court abolished my state's "source tax" which, since my wife and I both have state pensions, would have taxed them no matter what state we actually lived in. Once I retire (a bit over two years) we're moving to the south-east to a state that doesn't tax ANY government pension, regardless of its origin.

 

 

Congress NEVER met a tax it didn't like!:p:cool::eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Eh? What you be smokin'? Go back and review the survivor benefits of your RPP package. There's usually a beneficiary/estate clause.

 

...then unless there's a spouse, a minor child or a dependent adult child, the pension dies with the individual. It cannot be left to an estate because that could result in it being paid out in perpetuity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
...then unless there's a spouse, a minor child or a dependent adult child, the pension dies with the individual. It cannot be left to an estate because that could result in it being paid out in perpetuity.

There are lump-sum payments, of which the amount can be variable, in relation to the amount the employee/employer puts into it. If I were the couple who were getting married, I would seriously review their RPP terms and conditions. They maybe doing it for a number of reasons beyond the RPP.

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...