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?

OP, you seem to be saying 'change the law so that it makes all possible situations advantageous to me and my particular circumstances'. It is the very definition of having your cake and eating - if your relationship ends before one of you dies, you want to be able to walk away with all your own money, as if you weren't married; but if you are separated by the death of your partner, you want the financial situation to be as if you were married so you don't have to pay IHT.

The law isn't mix and match. Get good financial advice to decide which of the scenarios would suit you best, and act accordingly. But don't expect to be able to reshape the world to your personal preferences.

Looking on the bright side, if the partner doesn't make a will or decides to leave their property to someone else then their half of the property won't go to to the surviving partner anyway - so they'll avoid inheritance tax because they won't have inherited anything!

That depends on the worth of your house and other assets. Joint tenants have to pay inheritance tax over the threshold of 350k (which amount includes savings and other assets as well as a house).
Marriage/civil partnerships are legal contracts. One of the purposes of marriage was to protect women so that they could not be left destitute if there were assets.

They can always prove they are in a serious relationship by getting married.Its a legal agreement that shows they want assets like houses shared.
Not married must be assumed not serious!

Sorry but marriage is more than a bit of paper and this why those with any sense and in serious relationships do get married.

There are privileges and responsibilities which come with marriage. Marriage is making a firm commitment in public. Cohabiting shows no public commitment, so why should it come with the same privileges as marriage?

You don’t need to be married just register your partnership. Civil partnership is open to opposite sex couples.Biggest take up of civil partnerships is older couples putting affairs in order. No need to tell anyone just do it along with will, poa and keep paperwork together.
But yes the IHT rules and a desire to make things easier for partner often result in long term couples marrying eg Ken Dodd, Alan Rickman or Alistair Campbell civil partnership. Illness or death in family often makes people think eg Kirstie Allsop - her 64 yr old partner is probably looking at financial planning for retirement and beyond.

It was well publicised at the time. First couple in the press etc.
It wont cost much to register your partnership. They have to offer a no frills statutory option for marriage and civil partnerships check with your local council.

@Blusterylimp if you're serious about not liking each much you're even more stupid than you appear as you appear to be planning on staying with him.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/marriagecohabitationandcivilpartnerships/bulletins/civilpartnershipsinenglandandwales/2022

55-64 age group biggest take up for registering opposite sex partnerships.

There's no such thing in UK law as next of kin. However, you do need to make sure to make a will, as in the eyes of the law your partner is as related to you as your next door neighbour. So if you die without a will, intestacy rules will apply.

If people are dim enough not to marry or do a civil partnership in this situation then it's their lookout.

You know that far more cohabitations fail? And if a marriage fails the woman has recourse to the courts to get a just settlement. Cohabitation splits often go unnoticed unless there are children. If there are children then that makes everything complicated. You might even need DNA tests to prove paternity (children in a marriage are assumed to be the husband's unless there is proof otherwise).

But HMRC would assess the house share for Inheritance tax and the person inheriting it would be liable, this s not necessarily the other partner, each person in a tenants in common a=ownership can leave their half as they wish. It still will not be the same allowance as a married couple would receive, almost £1m depending on how money is left, but that's what happens by not formalising the relationship.

Although you seemed to only be committed while you are together, not committed enough to want to share all you assets whith him - just in case you split up, and you don't want him getting his mits on your dosh! That's not committment, that's just being together for now.

These are fees for my area. No need to have a ceremony that’s optional extra. It’s same as making a will etc.
www.lancashire.gov.uk/births-marriages-and-deaths/ceremonies/civil-partnerships/

I don't think this is correct. Someone will still need to pay inheritance tax.

If you want the benefits of a marriage or civil partnership then you need to have a marriage or civil partnership.

As PPs have said, getting married/civil partnership is a contract. It shows a joint intention to combine lives/assets. I think it would be really difficult for the legal process on death to work out if cohabitees had intended to combine lives/assets or not if they weren't married - yes, they could be in a long-term loving relationship as partners but they could be lodger & landlord; siblings; friends; carer & cared for etc. If you want the benefits of marriage/civil partnership you have to sign the contract and accept the other aspects (sharing assets) of the marriage/civil partnership contract.

You dont even need to get married. A civil partnership works just as well.

I've thought about this as there is no way I'm getting married as I want to leave everything to my son. So I'm stuck. I can't live with a partner or get married. I could only have a live out partner.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/commentisfree/2021/apr/04/civil-partnership-why-alastair-campbell-and-fiona-millar-tied-the-knot

Alistair Campbell was in press too a lot. I’m really surprised it’s passed you by.

I'm really flabbergasted by the poster who keeps saying her children will be punished and penalised because they may not inherit her entire estate free of inheritance tax. As already pointed out, she can leave £500k free of tax if that includes her main residence and it's going to her children. So straight away her children are better off by half a million pounds! What sort of punishment is that?

Then, if her estate is worth more than half a million after paying off all debts, including the mortgage, inheritance tax of 40% will be charged on the portion above £500k. So say the total estate is £1m, the IHT will be £200k but the children share £800k between them. That's a lot of money.

Most adults don't inherit anything like the amount of money we're talking about here. The ones that do are not being financially penalised, they are being given a huge leg up which they didn't earn. I live in London and my own children will be in that position. There will be IHT on our house. We didn't earn that money. We just had the insane good luck to buy a house that is now worth a lot more than we paid for it. Why shouldn't a chunk of that windfall go to fund the NHS, schools and so on?

It's not a bad thing. It means in theory that people can choose to live with someone without that person automatically inheriting their assets if that's not what they want. If they do want the person they live with to inherit their assets, they can choose to get married or have a civil partnership.

The protection is there and available to all. It is essentially an opt-in system. People just need to take responsibility for their choices.

I know a couple together for decades and he doesn’t want to get married - he says because there’s no need, just a piece of paper, don’t like fuss etc etc etc but actually just is concerned that the house remains in his name in case anything happens. Regardless of length, he is not committed.

I haven’t RTFT but I think the popular representation of marriage as a wedding with all the fluff that goes with it does some women in particular a huge disservice. And I mean women who don’t buy into all that fluff, as it can alienate them from the protections that the legal contract affords.

it is first and foremost a legal contract that is recognised by the state.

i got married because of the financial
implications and because of the benefits to our children (eg guardianship should one of us pass away). I didn’t need a marriage for the relationship itself.
So I had no church no white dress no big party - just a registry office thing - because I never wanted any of that stuff. But the legal contract is critically important.