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?

There are a lot of things I'm outraged about. This one does not feature at all on the outrageometer.

OP, two solutions have been suggested: get married or have a civil partnership. Another solution might be to sell your house, split the proceeds and live separately. That way neither of you get your mitts on each other's assets, and no one has to worry about losing their home.

It's a perfectly fine approach in an equal partnership. It's a morally corrupt approach in a partnership where the man's ability to earn is subsidised by the invisible labour of a woman doing childcare.

In my personal case, DP and I have different priorities. He wants a low effort part time job that makes enough to scrape by and gives him 3 days off with early finishes. I have a career and want to save for DC, buy property, ect. We have reconciled this difference by me working much harder, paying more money into the joint pot, paying for our holidays and days out, funding most of our house deposit and mortgage payments, but also putting aside more money and my own pension. I feel no guilt about this. The house that I've saved for is in both our names, I took the maternity leave and absorbed the career damages of DC (he took two weeks off). I did most of the childcare when DC were small, with equal childcare from 2 years until reception. We share the house work, with me doing more mental load. I don't feel that DP has been short-changed. We both get what we want out of our financial layout, even though we want different things. If he had taken a career hit and hurt his own earning potential to enable us to have DC while prioritising my career, then I would have no hesitation in getting married and sharing it all.

That's simply not true. A lot of politicians have been "bothered".

It's an issue that's been discussed many times since at least July 2007, when the Law Commission recommended published a report which considered the financial consequences of ending cohabiting relationships. The Commission recommended the introduction of a new statutory scheme of ‘financial relief on separation’.

In the Parliamentary 2008-09 session two Private Members Bills were introduced.

In November 2017, Caroline Lucas introduced an Early Day Motion on subject.

In 2018, Chris Williamson asked a Question about it in Parliament.

In 2019 and 2020 two more Private Members Bills were introduced.

Parliament's Women and Equalities Committee held an Inquiry into The Rights of Cohabiting Partners from November 2021 to February 2022. They published a report in July 2022. You can read it here: https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/23321/documents/170094/default/

A research briefing called "Common law marriage" and cohabitation was published by Parliament in November 2022. You can read it here:
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN03372/SN03372.pdf

A draft bill was also introduced in 2024 but fell when the election was called.

Please don't make such sweeping generalisations when your claim is so easily verifiable.

I am a bit of a hypocrite because I hate it when people say that XYZ issue should be taught about in schools (because schools are busy enough and are not there to solve all the evils in society) BUT I wish this was covered in PHSE lessons. Things like the rights and responsibilities of marriage, that "common law wife" doesn't mean anything.

A friend who wasn't married to her partner was horrified when I said that she would need to pay inheritance tax on his half of the house if he died (family house in the south east, quite possibly pushing him over the threshold). She kept saying "But we live together!" (which makes them flatmates under the law). "But we have children together!".

It's possible this is difficult to cover in PHSE because it's awkward talking about this to children whose parents aren't married.

I gave my reasons for not wanting to get married, above your post.

Because they've either rewritten laws or created new ones

Yes, that's how reform works. What was your point?

Can't be bothered with this. You have been told what to do, so you either do it or you go the complicated route via a solicitor to make sure you don't find yourself homeless if your DP dies.
😴

But the point is that the committment must be public and registered. Otherwise there is no way to verify the contract. You wouldn't allow that with any other contract, so why cohabiting?
And it's just a comment so I won't get my knickers in a twist over it. I won't pay IHT either.

EVen with a PoA, which my late DH had for his DM, there is little choice at end of life. He had the difficult decision to remove all but palliative care.
I did not have PoA when my DH suffered a cardiac arrest. thb it had not occurred to us we would need one since we were married (I know better, now). This meant I had very little impact on his care. Happily, my DD was able to call her uncle and cousin - both doctors - so that we knew that all that could be done was being done and we could ask the right questions and understand the answers. What her cousin and uncle did not tell my DD was that the chances of recovery, had the cardiac arrest happened in hospital, was less than 2%. It happened at home and I was not in the room.

No one in our govt seems to think it needs revision?

Those that are bothered - lobby your MPs.

Don't think it'll be a high priority right now though

Thanks for all the replies.
I can see that there are not many people in my situation. I think we will look at a civil partnership if either of us gets ill and just hope we don’t die suddenly before we can arrange it.

The joint tenancy being exempt from IHT is not correct. If your partner were to die then their share of the property would be subject to IHT.

Yes, that was clarified further down the thread.

IHT was recently introduced for pension pots as well. Does that apply to married people and those in civil partnerships too?

Exactly, there's already a method of legalising a relationship, that can be done in a short visit to an office that's near to most places, with a relatively modest fee.

If they introduced an alternative to marriage or a civil partnership which achieved the same IHT protection, it would take much longer and cost far more.

That comes under the heading of tough shit people want all the protection of marriage without having to get married and I’m afraid that it doesn’t work like that get married or don’t but don’t cry about it when your not protected from having to pay inheritance tax if one or other of you dies there doesn’t exist any laws to protect the nearly married or the ones who just want to try before they buy.

It did happen.

Then that's their choice. It's what marriage is for. You can't choose not to do it and still expect the legal benefits. Tough.

In my experience, a lot of MEN don't want to get married, and the women get talked into the whole "it's just a piece of paper" thing. More fool them.

Yes including pensions property and businesses.

Honestly get married.

Women started to "reject" marriage in the 1980s. Marriage brings financial responsibility, protects family.

I got married in early 2000s it was low cost wedding but the long term benefits are so important protecting both parties and the children

You're actually wrong there. Law does allow this. I know this from making my Will. Your cohabiting partner can make a claim against your estate even if you don't include them in it. Enjoy your kitkat.

Yeah but making a claim doesn’t mean they’ll get it, and it could be costly.

The answer is quite simple. Go and get married.

The tax benefit of interspousal transfers is earned through a legal commitment to partnership with the other party. Its not rocket science

It's probably because tax is insanely complicated enough and they can't be arsed to create a special category for "people who quite like each other but def don't want to get married because they may break up and really don't want to have to share assets in that case but also want to avoid IHT" because bear in mind this system would also have to cover anyone who had bought a house together unless you expanded it to "only people who have/had sex in the past/ intend to have sex in the future hmm who knows". Absolutely nothing to stop anyone buying a house with basically anyone just before they die and then, oh right, no IHT for that whole group so def no way of anyone exploiting that loophole. So now you have to find a way of excluding that group of people. How do you define that? Oh wait. That's quite hard too. Hum dee hum. Oh, yes, tax law is quite hard to write! Who'd have thunk?!

I think you’ve nailed it 🤣