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?

You just own the house as tenants in common. Then you automatically get the other "half" when the other dies.

And what if, say, the woman wants to get married for the financial protection and the man says no. And 'just leaving' isn't an option. Then how is this system fair?

Read the thread. This is not the issue. The OP is annoyed that only married couples and couples in a civil partnership can pass on property to each other with no inheritance tax even if the property is worth a lot of money.

We have an opt in system.
It’s clear and removes uncertainty.
People often have complex lives. So still married to wife but living with new girlfriend. Are they friends living together, lodger and house owner or a couple. One partner working away. Lots of couples don’t share finances but are still very much a couple. My friend is engaged but they have separate houses for work reasons but are together several nights a week plus frequent holidays - cohabitation?

I can't give an expert answer on this. Some people (lawyers or accountants) agree with you, using the magic words, "..treated as if you had inherited half the value of the house ..." My view is that legally you own the whole house and do not inherit any part of it (which other lawyers say), but HMRC have tax rules which may "treat" you differently. IMO this is not unusual in tax rules, which are made to try to ensure equity (or maybe that they get their slice whatever the law said!) Clearly, I'll have to do some more detailed research about this.

I'm not an expert either but Martin Lewis and his team seem to agree with what I said above. https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/mortgages/joint-tenants-tenants-in-common/#:~:text=So%20if%20you%20own%20a,threshold%20(currently%20%C2%A3325%2C000).

Well that’s one reason to get married. If they don’t feel they can commit to each other enough to marry, then they don’t get to benefit from the legal advantages of marriage.

Basically, OP, you want to have your cake and eat it - you want to protect your assets from your partner by not marrying him, but if he leaves you by dying, you want the taxman to waive your tax bill as though you had actually married him. Talk about cherry picking.

I think you mean “joint tenants”. If you own as Tenants in common you have to have a will to say where you want your half (or other proportion) to go. With joint tenants it automatically passes to the survivor as you both own the whole house jointly. However it seems it actually makes minimal difference to the IHT treatment:

osborneslaw.com/blog/tenants-in-common-vs-joint-tenants/#:~:text=Joint%20tenants%3A%20half%20the%20property's,to%20the%20estate's%20total%20value.

Marriage for a man is a far bigger gamble than having to worry about inheritance tax let me tell you that much.

Either get screwed when your dead or screwed when you're alive, I know which I'd rather have and most men are thankfully waking up!

You are rather assuming men are the higher earner/wealthier party.
That's not always the case

So let’s get this straight. From the reply’s a lot of you don’t want to get married because if you split up you don’t want your other half to get any of your money! But you want all the benefits of being married as well. That’s why it’s not a public outrage, because most people, fairly, think you can’t have it both ways!

Yes it is outrageous that the government uses state sponsorship of marriage as a tool to generate money- why should you be forced into a state you don't agree with spiritually or philosophically for tax reasons- it's akin to insisting all couples join a club or pay far more tax when one of the couple dies- it's extortion , really.

I am about to separate from my husband. I have always worked, as a teacher… went back to work fairly quickly after each of my 3 children. Have just discovered that he is in debt, as a unit I am liable for half of this. He is entitled to half me pension.
Feeling short changed from deciding to get married!

? Marriage isn’t a tool to generate money. Delaying paying inheritance tax until both spouses have died is not “generating money,” it isn’t even avoiding tax, it’s deferring it. If you are philosophically opposed to marriage, which tends to treat the married couple as one unit who share everything, then you shouldn’t expect inheritance tax rules to treat you and your unmarried partner as a unit when one or the other of you dies.

For those thinking marriage equals financial stability please have a rethink.

The very laws that were traditionally put in place to protect women are now used against us, so there is no way to protect any premarital assets. Everything becomes a marital asset.

In a divorce your partner is entitled to half, even if they've cheated, abused you and left you in debt. Even if you have full custody of the kids, and work your ar*e off to put a roof over their heads. They still get entitlement to your assets for doing nothing except having that piece of paper. Assets also mean paper assets ie half of a family home you and your kids still live in!!

My current partner understands I'll never enter into that contract again. If IHT is paid, then so be it. Get a financial advisor, set up a trust, and protect yourself in life rather than worry about others after you die!

Selfish? Bitter? Yes totally! But I have a fractured spine for the belief that marriage would protect me! Once bitten....

When I left my XH, under the laws of where we lived at the time, he could have claimed alimony. That I was divorcing him in large part at that moment because of his lack of work ethic, it was especially galling. Thankfully he had enough pride not to go for that and settled for cash.

I still believe in marriage as the best way to protect women because it just as easily could have gone badly for me. I left that marriage in the stronger financial position, but I didn’t know for certain that would be the case. I was seriously ill during that marriage. If my cancer recovery had gone differently, I might have been the party who needed help.

you marry because you don’t know what will happen. You take the gamble that this is the person I’m tying my fortune to, quote literally. We share our risk together.

most of the time, it’s advantageous. My current husband and I make great economic partners. It’s the perfect environment for raising a child. Being linked together gives us freedom to make choices neither of us would ever make if we were two single entities raising a child together.

I live in the southeast and there are no houses even close to £325k anywhere near me. In my town the absolute cheapest house is £600K. So pretty sure the entire southeast is liable for IHT.

@Maternityleavelady you live in a wealthy town. The average property price in South East region is £437k, the median price is £365k.

Ah well I stand corrected! Every day is a school day 🤷🏻‍♀️. To answer the OP - yes that is absolutely ridiculous!

A word of warning - you are correct to be worried. A DF's partner died recently - lived together for over 20 years but never married (and no valid will - written but not witnessed). House was held as joint tenants so did transfer to DF - but IHT was required to be paid. DF fortunately was able to cover this with family help. The mortgage insurance payment only covered half the outstanding sum - not DF's half. On top of a very tragic death the fact you may loose your home is a reality although the regret in not marrying was more than just the financial hardship - you are not next of kin. In DF's situation their DP's family have also been difficult. I hope this situation never happens to you.

Yup. More fool them for not being married. It is a bonkers thing to do.

Another method of dealing with the inheritance tax issue, is to work out approximately how much it would be, then get life insurance on you both for that amount.

No risk of losing your assets if you split up, but would cover the inheritance tax bill. Would cost you a monthly amount though (but if you're both healthy it wouldn't be that much)

Why would leaving not be an option? And would it be fair to insist someone enter a financial contract when they have said no - wouldn’t that be coercion?

All taxation is generating money for the government- what on earth do you think taxation is?
The pertinent question is how that is done- penalising people because they don't have the same ideology/religion as their government is wrong , if the surviving partner of a marriage doesn't pay then neither should any surviving partner- the idea of it being a deferment is a completely different question, if a person doesn't have to pay in their lifetime it's fundamentally different than if they do.