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?

Yet more than half of marriages fail, so are you going to continue to blame the women as the problem here and say it's our fault they don't work? Really?

This is literally the point of marriage - a contract that allows couples to share their property and pass it to the other without tax consequences- so as though they were one person.

You do however need to have wills in which the first deceased' share of the house is left to whoever they wish, with the proviso that the surviving person has a lifetime right to live in the property. If there is no will then the deceased next of kin can force the sale to recover their inheritance.

I’m not married and I already knew this. That’s why couples with shared financial interests should get married. Get married. You can do it without the party. I think heterosexual couples can have a civil partnership now. You just fill in some paperwork.

So what do you suggest? Someone has pointed out that in Australia a cohabiting couple acquire financial rights after two years. I suspect this is a cause of break-up in many cases.
If you don't want the protection of a legal contract then that is your choice. You cannot expect to have the benefits of said legal contract if you won't sign it. Why is signing a legal contract that gives particular rights (and also duties) out dated? Explain.

Exactly. It’s like being surprised that funerals involve people dying.

Spot on

and of course that automatic claim over half the house would be a problem for lots of other cohabiting couples.

But you aren't as committed, you won't take the financial commitment.

That needn’t be an obstacle 😂

Gee, thanks @Spudthespanner
IQ of 157 suggests otherwise.

YABU
If you are both single then your estate is taxed based on 2 single people.
It's also easily solved either by getting married or having a civil partnership which is the way you can change things legally.

😀🔫

Even though the surviving one will lose the house we have jointly owned and lived in for decades?

You are not forced. Get solid, good, impartial legal advice and follow it. This will cost more than a marriage licence or civil partnership, but it is your choice. What you - and OP - don't seem to understand is that marriage/a civil partnership is a legal contract, just like buying a house, getting a passport or a driving licence etc. If you won't have the contract you cannot have the advantages it brings.
And also you don't understand that marriage/a civil partnership is a public declaration that you are a couple, that it must be witnessed and that it must be registered by the appropriate regulatory body (quite a wide range of these for both sorts of contract). What it doesn't require is an expensive frock, rings, a party etc. Those are the peripheries.

This is why it’s quite good sometimes to actually keep a mortgage.

The value of my share with mortgage would not meet the threshold. We have life insurance policies in trust which wouldn’t be affected by IHT. The other partner could then pay off the mortgage and own the half with no IHT.

If they lose the house, that would entirely down to their own failure to plan. This information is easily accessible. It's personal choice.

You can't have your cake and eat it.
You either share your assets legally when alive or dead or you don't. You can't expect new laws to be invented to suit everyone who doesn't like the ones we have.
Having children with a man who won't commit legally is a choice.

Which is why I got married and have advised my daughter to do so.

Well you can. You just need to know how.

I keep banging on about this to my children. It's a contract. The dress etc is optional

I'm now divorced and buying a property with my partner. We will be tenants in common in order to protect our assets.

That doesn't stop HMRC charging inheritance tax on the deceased's half!

DH and I didn’t really want to get married. But we did, purely because of this issue.

If this wasn't the case, you would be able to cheat inheritance tax very easily by buying a small portion of the property from your parents etc. It has to be this way.

This is nothing new? ...rights and responsibilities go hand in hand...