To wonder why there isn’t public outrage about this?

The reason you are getting a hard time is because you asking why people aren't 'outraged' at something that is easily fixable and only actually affects the wealthy, rather than you know, cost of living, homelessness, state of the NHS, child sex trade, or many many many things that aren't easily fixable and don't just effect the privileged.

YANBU. I don't agree with marriage. If I married then divorced then I'd lose my savings. I have lots more savings and a higher salary than DP (I am a woman and he is a man). We have DC. If two people jointly own a house then they shouldn't have to pay inheritance tax. The law is outdated. Same should go for children of the deceased unless the estate is huge.

Sorry OP but absolutely agree with this.

It’s absolutely fair. If you want the rights you have to enter in to the legal contract.

Look at it this way: you are asking for cohabiting couples to get IHT protection. The government could say “ok, sign a contract to declare you are both happy with that and we will do it”.

would you be happy with that?

Because it’s called a marriage certificate. Or a civil partnership certificate. Just turn up, sign the paperwork with witnesses and leave. No party or ceremony required.

And of cohabitating couples have the same rights as married couples for IHT, then it should apply to everything. So live with someone in a house, you are entitled to a share of the house if you split up.

Well, you are more than free to either lobby your MP or actually campaign for a change, if you can find enough people who could put up with you

They could just get married then?

They're commited enough to each other to buy a house together, whats the issue with get married?

And if they don't want to get married, we'll they accept what comes with that, surely?

Very gently OP can I ask why you and your partner don't want to get married or have a civil partnership? (you don't have to have a massive wedding, it can be done quite quickly in a registry office with a couple of witnesses and you don't have to change your name or wear a ring)

It does seem it would solve a few of your issues like being next of kin and inheriting each others estate and pensions.

Totally understand if the relationship is very new and it's too soon or perhaps volatile and you don't trust you'll still be together in 5 years time but buying a house makes more financial sense then renting.

Edit. Just seen your update that you think you'll split up and he'll take your assets, fair enough then, I guess it's just the choice you make. I think if you're not in a position to trust him enough for marriage you can't expect to enjoy the egal benefits of marriage that allow you to avoid tax. I kind of agree that you can't have it both ways. Xx

Simple solution - marry. It only affects houses that cost more.

Doesn't mean it's a good idea does it? Hopefully never brought in the UK

Tough. Not going to happen.

To wonder why there isn’t public outrage about this?

Because, frankly, most of us don't care. It's an easy and quick fix and if you don't want to do that, that is your business. So why should I or anyone else care about it?

In which case you accept that if his half of the property is worth more than £325,000 you have to pay inheritance tax.

You can’t have it both ways.

How would it be known that the cohabiting couples wanted to be treated as though they were married? You can't just make assumptions. It has to be known and agreed. What if one party wants it but the other doesn't?

If there's assumptions about inheritance, shared assets, etc, based on how long you've been living together, for example, then people who didn't want that would just refuse to cohabit.

Then would you get people wanting the rights of cohabitation without cohabiting? Why should we have to live together to get the legal entitlements of living together?

So, some sort of written agreement would be needed, perhaps? Setting out rights and responsibilities? Ensuring people wanted to agree to the terms?

If it's only based on living together, then would it be an opt-in or an opt-out? People can't be entered into financial agreements without their express consent.

It seems unnecessarily complicated when there are already two comprehensive contracts that clearly set it all out. Marriage. Civil partnership.

But if people decide not to get married, why should they be forced to accept the financial commitment of marriage? Surely it’s a choice that people should be allowed to make freely?

Really? One family member didn't pay IHT at all. They inherited the house from their parents name was on the house so they took the whole home and never paid anything.

So you want the benefits but CBA to make the slightest effort? 🙄

Honestly, I'd look into it a bit more. One of my family had a civil partnership recently and the whole thing was done and dusted in minutes. No guests, no dressing up, no party or any sort of recognition afterwards. No flowers, no photos - it was considerably quicker than a passport application all told.

Not as a blanket rule, no. They CAN be taken into account - but not necessarily.

I am convinced FM reads MN ... this popped up just now

I thought UK courts now recognise prenups.

No party needed for marriage, a wedding is something else.

Are you confusing the two OP?