What Are the Arguments for Assuming Future Employment versus Assuming an Immediate Termination?
Most arguments against including salary increases after the dissolution of the marriage rest on the fact that increases are earned after the marriage and are thus nonmarital. Barth Goldberg counters that the freezing of the participant’s salary at the time of divorce is “ridiculous,” explaining that many pay increases are perfunctory and the result of negotiations or seniority. Keep in mind that the funding for those salary increases near retirement is in place long before retirement. In fact, the funding for those salary increases and larger accrued benefits has been in place from the beginning of employment and therefore has been earned by the joint efforts of the parties. The fact that the actual realized accrual of the pension catches up with the funding only near retirement should not be used to deny nonparticipant spouses of their rightful share of the pension on the specious grounds that the salary increase is nonmarital. Also keep in mind that the participant’s highest final av
Related Questions
- Can the Future Jobs Fund be combined with existing recruitment subsidies or other employment support programmes?
- What Are the Arguments for Assuming Future Employment versus Assuming an Immediate Termination?
- Employees were laid off from work in December. Is that an involuntary termination of employment?
