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?

Well you can't benefit from two different systems at the same time. EITHER your assets (including half of your shared home) belong solely to you, in which case he can't have a share of them if you split up; OR your assets are joint (via a marriage or civil partnership)) and you benefit from IHT rules. They can't be seperate for one purpose and joint for another. Choose which syststem benefits you best at the moment.

You could play the odds, assume that you won't die prematurely, wait it out until you've very old and more certain that you won't split and then have a civil partnership when you're 80. It's not uncommon for registrars to hold short-notice civil partnerships in hospital when someone is very likely to die. Fingers crossed no-one has a sudden heart attack, stroke or a fatal accident.

You don't even need to say anything during a civil partnership, just sign the paperwork with the official (usually a registrar) and have it legally witnessed.

The couple need to be seen and to bring witnesses - the internet is not a safe place to allow contracts to be signed. You don't need a party. The witnesses don't even have to know you. Go out at lunchtime and arrange a marriage/civil partnership ceremony. If you don't want banns because people will see them (that being the point) get a special licence. Go to the Registry Office and get married/have a civil contract. You could say to the Registrar when arranging the ceremony that you have no witnesses and they should be able to suggest someone. No-one has to know you are married and you don't need to wear some expensive frock and have a party. The rings you might exchange do not need to look like wedding rings and you do not have to wear them thereafter. But you now have a legal contract which deals with IHT and also things like next of kin and which can only be dissolved by legal means.

Exactly, it seems that I am not the only one confused on this thread.

Then they can't complain about not having the benefits of marriage if they don't want to. There are other ways to protect themselves so it's tough if they don't do any.

That is their choice, and that choice has consequences. There is also a civil partnership, if they want to protect each other financially/legally.

Then they don't marry, up to them, innit.

Public outrage?

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

You're daft OP.

How are they committed?

What do you mean "the romantic aspect"? A civil ceremony (whether marriage or civil partnership - I've had both) can be as perfunctory and unromantic as you like.

Au contraire, I think we can complain. Men who don't shoulder the burden of kids and their costs should have to pay the same as women who have had to pay for them solo then get clobbered again when trying to leave something to the kids. This is about having equal opportunities for all kids IMO, not gender, but women tend to take on the financial responsibilities of kids when men decide to feck off. If they get married 10 times and end up passing more to the kids in that final marriage just because they are more laissez-faire about spreading their seed, why should their first partner not be able to pass down the same amount to the first kid?

There are also financial advantages to being unmarried. You do what suits you and take the hit or the advantages inherent.

I can see that is a grey area but there are lots of cohabiting couples who are just as committed as married ones and have been together decades.

Why?

You aren’t financial partners in life, why should you be financial partners in death?

@Blusterylimp it is fair. It is also just. You cannot have what you will not contract to have. That's it.

But how specifically are they committed?

Once you are dead it isn't about you it's about the inheritors. They are the ones penalised.

That's their choice made then. They chose to pay the tax rather than get married.

There have been many occasions when I have suggested marriage to couples when tax planning and that is the only reason I married DP.

Once I did not as it would have been a very bad idea.

We are financial partners in the ownership of the property

They are not punished. You can leave up to 500k to them without IHT.

Marriage is all about the contract. The ceremony is just to recognise the seriousness of the commitment.

No marriage, no commitment

So you are the wealthy one? If so, state your circumstances and posters can help. Marriage might not be best for you.

Contracts are not geared around feckless arseholes who decide to “feck off” on a whim.
How can they be? Maybe women shouldn’t procreate with dickheads who’ve already done it multiple times and walked away 🤷🏻‍♀️

OP, this is AIBU therefore any views on marriage expressed on here are not necessarily those of the person that has posted them.

Yes, the reason the marriage/CP contract has these prerequisites is because it's so important. It would be an absolutely fucking terrible idea for it to be a box on a website/form that anyone can print off, sign when they're pissed, be forced into signing, no witnesses or safeguards.

oh dear, maybe I need to propose to my partner. Problem is that we don’t like each other very much 🤷‍♀️