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?

To be fair, plenty of women have said/thought that about marriage too and don't see the legal benefits.

Yes, but the term was created by men. It's a way of stringing women along until Miss Right comes along.

Didn't Ken Dood marry his partner shortly before the end for this and other fiscal reasons?

I just googled out of interest and found that it saved them £11 million in inheritance tax! They married two days before his death.

He also said he could never understand why the inland revenue were so interested in him given he lived by the sea....

"You still have £500k as a single person with children. And you personally won’t pay a penny because you’ll be dead." No, in my case even though I have a house being left to children my allowance is only £325,000 in England due to the value of my house. However most single people with a house being left to children do indeed have 500k allowance and only 10% of estates pay IHT.

That would mean that your entire estate is over £2.35 million if you've lost the RNRB entirely. I'd do a bit of tax planning if I were you.

only 10% of estates pay IHT.

It’s currently 4% and expected to rise to 7% in 2032.

That’s really surprisingly low, maybe because the really rich plan not to pay it whereas the middle class don’t

It will be far more if the current NRB are maintained. Don't forget pensions will now be included.

On that point, maybe it's relevant that civil partnerships are commonest in older couples. The data doesn't break down income, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it were disproportionately people who ideally don't want to marry but might be liable for IHT

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

Surely it won't be rising if more will be having to pay 3k per week for nursing care?

The answer to that one’s easy - spend or give away income in retirement which is, after all, what a pension is supposed to be for.

It also makes it easier for the purposes of workplace pensions. I remember asking my pension administrator if my live in boyfriend could be registered to receive a pension on my death but they said no, it was only payable to a spouse.

Less than 10% of over 85s are in residential care. It affects only a small proportion of the population.

The government apparently are going to start fiddling with the gifting rules and change the PET period to 10 years which won't help older people now.

I think good to spend but obviously bad for the taxpayer as people will end up spending money that they could have used to fund their own care.

Also in my experience most people want to leave money to their kids. It's already been taxed so I don't see that as wrong (although I know we will disagree on that).

The bulk of inheritances is property proceeds, the majority of which is due to decades of inflation and has never been taxed. I’ve seen nothing about changes to gifting rules but anyone thinking this is a possibility should crack on and give money away now. The seven year rule doesn’t apply to income, only capital

That is another surprising figure but also one that I strongly suspect won't be reflected in 10/20 years time as women from the younger generations don't provide as much free nursing care due to work commitments. Just a guess but I do think the aging population will stop any increase in IHT, particularly as the obese generation get to those points of needing care. Then add all of the people who don't have kids by choice, those who emigrated, etc.

The main reason people need residential care is dementia which isn’t affected by obesity. Obesity related diseases tend to be physical and cause early death.

That depends on the pension in question. If it's a money purchase pension you can nominate who you like (subject to tax rules) but if the scheme is defined benefit eligibility for survivors' pensions (partners and/or children) depends on the rules of the scheme. These will often provide for a survivor's pension payable to a dependent cohabiting partner if there is no legal spouse, but not always. And there are often even restrictions on benefits where the marriage/CP took place less than 6 months before death (to prevent someone marrying on their deathbed just to obtain a survivor's pension, where the person wasn't in fact a cohabiting partner).

Yes, most of this is previously untaxed gains.

More that most people simply don't have enough money/assets to pay it. If you disagree, it's likely because you're in an affluent bubble.

For married couples it's a million pounds. I can only think of one or two people I know who might be affected by IHT.

Alcohol use peaked around the 90s-2010's alongside being able to smoke anywhere. Once these people need care it will be more of a crisis.
My point was comorbidities are rising every generation, resulting in more specialist needs as we live longer.

You can give away income if it doesn't impact your "living standards" which might be limited amounts. Plus a lot of older people have built up capital and assets by their own hard work that they want to pass on.

Agreed re property proceeds. But that doesn't apply so much oop north...

The statistics don’t support that assertion with regard to smoking.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/423001/cigarette-smoking-in-great-britain-by-gender/