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?

Women do the majority of household tasks and child rearing and often drop their working hours (and therefore pension contributions) to do so. Then the fucking twat will cheat on her for someone younger and screw her over again.

Because that never happens in cohabiting partners, no...

You can enter into a civil partnership if you object to marriage for some reason. If you want a more casual arrangement, that’s your choice?

You think none of those things happen if a couple cohabit without being married or in a civil partnership? Why do you think this?

Why not just do a civil partnership? Imagine how complicated it would be to prove you were a common law spouse.

Alternatively get a Will and get legal advice. You can draft a Will so that your partner gets the benefit of your NRB even though it idnt transferable between unmarried couples. It's fiddly and involves trusts but can help a bit.

You married the wrong man.
Millions of us didn’t 🤷🏻‍♀️

Unfortunately, if you're being taxed, you count as 2cseparate individuals but if you're likely to gain, then you're considered a couple 😕
We got married to simplify things... I didn't take his name etc

Irrespective of the tax issues discussed on this thread, definitely get wills done if you aren't married! And lasting powers of attorney. I've seen some really sad cases in my job where people assumed that they had rights because they had lived with their partner for X years, and it all goes wrong when one of them dies with no will and the partner gets nothing from the estate.

Exactly. And do you really want your child's future in the hands of the courts and Social Services. Appoint guardians at the very least.

That goes for both married and unmarried parents btw.

But what if you live with and share finances/a mortgage with your sister, your child, a friend. Does the system treat this differently to a romantic partner with whom you share finances and live with. How does the system know that your are romantic partners not pals? Currently it knows because those people will be spouses or civil partners.
How does they system distinguish people living together in a romantic relationship who haven't married because they don't want to be treated as a financial unit in death (because they want to pass their respective assets to their respective children) and those who haven't married for some other reason but do want to be seen as a unit in death?

I don't eat KitKat, it's now made my Nestles and I do not knowingly buy anything they make. Which bit did I get wrong? Are you thinking of accepting a deal is done by shaking hands?

Any will can be contested, I guess.

Agreed. Nestle chocolate is terrible. They've ruined Smarties too.

Never been married. I'm just lucky I guess. 😂

Well so long as you don't expect to benefit from the IHT spousal exemption despite not having a spouse, it's all good!

Someone I knew had her partner die and huge compensation was due for the accident. The dead partner’s parents pocketed it as next of kin. He hadn’t wanted to get married and they had no dc yet. Everyone in our circle agreed that she shouldn’t get anything and didn’t deserve it because she had just lost a bf. I thought it was a bit unfair that the parents did not give her some of it, as she did have to sell up. They had a mortgage together they were about 5 years in. She did meet someone else and had a family afterwards.

When people move in together without being married, these are the consequences. I'm not being morally superior as I did it myself, but it's easy to rectify through Civil Partnership or marriage.

If you're prepared to buy a property with someone then why wouldn't you be prepared to enter into a legal relationship with them to protect your assets?

As someone who never wanted to marry, it is odd that people are still ok with these hinderances. To keep marriage as the preferred way to live will never fully liberate women.

I know two gay women who never run into these issues, and another couple who can't live together or marry because one of them would have to cover all rent/costs since the partner is unable to work due to illness.

Since the cost of living is pinching many right now, it does feel punitive.

I liken it to the poor tax. If you aren't well off enough to not care, they'll find a way to stuff you.

I've never claimed benefits although never been wealthy. Preferring to remain single has been haaaaard!

Some of the advice is conflicting. I am unmarried, with partner for 32 years, tenants in common of 3 properties, 50/50 leaving our respective shares of properties to children not each other. Does this sound ok?

@GetDressedYouMerryGentlemen I was thinking in terms of you could prove you were in a relationship with each other. Joint bank accounts, and so on. It's not cut and dried, but it would be possible to distinguish between a couple and family, housemates etc?

I think it depends what you mean by OK. Depending on the value of the properties you might each be liable for inheritance tax. You'd need expert advice looking at your specific circumstances.

It would be possible to distinguish in many cases, but not necessarily. A lot of people have very complicated family/relationship arrangements and it would be difficult to know where to draw the line. And why should "in a relationship" be enough that the law treats you the same as if you were married for iht purposes? At what point does a bf/gf relationship become one akin to marriage? And how would you protect people (mostly women) from being thrown out by abusive partners on the eve of the relationship going over the legal threshold? As has already been pointed out upthread, what about those who have actively decided not to marry or become civil partners, for financial reasons?

All these complications are avoided by the law as it currently stands - if you want to be partners in law, you can get married or enter a civil partnership.

It'll probably be fairly obvious most of the time. Those aren't the cases that would be the problem.

It does also mean some cohabitation would have more rights than others, which throws up a new issue. People with more obviously merged finances and kids would be in a stronger position than other cohabitants who kept things more separate.

What happens if someone is legally married but also living with someone or living between homes with a partner in each (perhaps not a very common occurrence but it does happen) with bigamy there is a clear precedence i.e. the marriage that happened first but two 'live in lovers' which the 'legal' partner for iht purposes?

If laws only had to cover the straight forward cases it would be fine but the law has to cover all circumstances.

I hate to put a damper on this thought but my first DH died very suddenly in a plane crash at the age of 54. Luckily for me and the DC, he and I were married so there was no problem.

I remarried and my second DH and I own our house as tenants in common, as we both have DC from our first marriages who will inherit most of our estates, but both of us have written our wills so that after the first of us dies the other has the right to stay in the marital home until such time as either the second of us dies or chooses to sell the house, at which time the value of the first-to-die partner's share passes into his or her estate and is distributed to his or her heirs. Other assets are willed separately. I'm in the USA so inheritance tax is not an issue here as we're not multi-millionaires, but I'm wondering if that would work in the UK.

Oh ok so you both own it equally, so its automatically inherited without a will, but you still need to be married to inherit your 'share' without paying tax. Makes sense.