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

[Blusterylimp]

If a couple isn’t married but own their property between them, the surviving one will need to pay inheritance tax on their partners half of the house (and other assets) if they die.
Effectively they will lose their home to pay the IHT unless they also have huge savings.
How can that be allowed in this day and age when so many couples cohabit without getting married?

That’s why marriage is more than a piece of paper
it’s easily solvable

Yes we'll. They are adults and know, presumably, what will happen

Might be easily solvable but a lot of couples don’t want to get married.

There is a legal process to avoid it happening. It's called get married or have a civil partnership.

I’ve only just realised this myself and I am usually very financially savvy.

Well, that's their look out then.

Marriage is a contract. This is the deal.

Then there’s consequences to that 🤷🤷

Tough luck. Them’s the rules.

Then they willingly accept the consequences of not being married.

Life is all about choices, as my DF used to say. If you want to be treated as a unit for tax and inheritance purposes, we have a short, simple, cheap ceremony for that.

Then they need to transfer the house so its owned as "tenants in common"

Why should anyone be outraged by this?

Get married if you want legal protection.

If they don't want to get married then they don't get the legal benefits to marriage. Other option is own the property as joint tenants then it just becomes the others with no issues but if people are refusing to get married and owning property as tenants in common then this is what happens.

But that’s the point of marriage lol your relationship is treated differently in these circumstances?

If they choose not to get into a binding contract, they can't then moan that they can't benefit from it.

Life has lots of things that don’t suit us individually and you can’t please everyone.

Well, that's a decision they make, then. For whatever reason, they feel that the drawbacks of marriage outweigh the advantages. One of the advantages is the IHT thing. All decisions have consequences - this is a consequence of not getting married.

And anyway, if you buy as joint tenants, rather than tenants-in-common, I don't think this is even relevant - you both own 100% of the house so if one of you dies, the other continues to own 100% of the house.

No, I'm not very outraged, sorry. Either get married or don't, both options have financial consequences. No point carrying on like you are persecuted.

Oh they can, believe me.

And they will.

If they don't want to enter into a contract then they don't get the benefits of that contract.

Fair enough.

What do you mean by 'dont want to'? If it's they don't want to have a wedding then you honestly don't have to have a party or ceremony. If they don't want to be part of the misogynistic history of marriage, get a civil partnership. Don't want to have the state involved in your relationship, then yes there are tax implications...

Then don’t expect the legal benefits surely?

Being cynical, that's all it ever was.

You don't need to be married to avoid inheritance tax on your home. You just need to be joint tenants.

See op the problem is at what point do you call a couple serious enough that the partner automatically has the rights of a couple who chose to make their union legally binding? The family of the owner of the property could be pissed off that a not very serious partner got everything their son/ daughter worked/ saved for