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?

More than IHT affects though

Obviously because not everyone in residential care is self funding and those who are continue to self fund until they’re down to their last £23.5k.

Yes it was a defined benefit scheme.

I remember when my Dad died. My Mum had cancer and couldn’t really manage very much admin. It was really easy because the pension scheme administrators were pretty much all fine with a scanned copy of my parents’ wedding certificate, a copy of my Dad’s Will (I am not certain that all needed this - but the one in the US did), my Dad’s death certificate and a scanned copy of my Mum’s passport. An advantage of being married / in a civil partnership is that it makes stuff like this easier when you are old and sick.

“An affluent bubble”?
Nothing exceptional in our case. Both graduates who have worked all our lives and have a three bed property in the SE which would be worth £1m+ now.

However you can buy a three bed property in Sunderland for less than £100k, so your bubble is affluent however hard you worked to be in it.

An affluent bubble then!

So you've either massively benefited from house price inflation and have unearned and untaxed wealth, or you have the income to support a mortgage of around £1M+, so are more affluent than just about everyone. £1M is still riches beyond the wildest dreams of most.

We haven’t benefited from house price inflation when we are living in the house. We have a three bedroom house however much it is worth.
Thats the whole point of this thread really. When one of us dies, the surviving one will have to pay IHT on half the value of the house or lose their home. That seems harsh to me to lose our home but I can see that it would make the IHT laws easier to bypass if cohabiting couples had the same rights as married and civil partnership couples.

So get married, become civil partners, take out insurance policies to cover the IHT, start saving to cover the IHT or make plans for the surviving partner to downsize on being widowed.

Obesity in midlife is associated with a 30% higher dementia risk in later life.

If you buy as joint tenants this isn't an issue as the remaining person owns it automatically

Nah, just start a thread on mumsnet trying to drum up outrage!

Wrong, IHT is still payable whether owned as joint tenants or tenants in common. There is a lot of misunderstanding about this.

🤣

How many times 🤦‍♀️

Is this the new "cancel the cheque"?...

I can't believe there are people who think you can avoid IHT just by owning as JTs/TiC (and who still think this despite the multiple explanations on this thread!)

It can seem as harsh as you like. But from a Treasury perspective, each of you owns 50% of a property which has appreciated on the rising tide of the SE housing bubble & no tax has been paid on it.

Upon death, tax becomes payable.

Unless your partnership means so much to you that you want to recognise it as a significant one for tax & legal purposes.

If only there was a simple way to distinguish significant partnerships from fly-by-night or trivial ones, or ones where partners expressly want to keep their tax affairs separate and unembroiled...by registering it for example?

At a Registry Office.

Don't let the fact it's called a Civil Partnership rather than a 'Registered' Partnership but you off from getting down the Registry Office & doing it.

You'll find it fixes your concerns about IHT, OP!

My DDiL' so parents aren't married but they took leg advice and made wills that ensures the same protection as marriage, and also a document thy states what would happen if their relationship broke down. Honestly a wedding would have been cheaper.

We haven’t benefited from house price inflation when we are living in the house.

Nobody does. That’s why it’s subject to tax when you die.

OP you seem determined to not admit what is blindingly obvious to everyone else here, namely that you are in a very privileged, affluent position.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/totalwealthingreatbritain/april2018tomarch2020

This is a couple of years old but by your description you have more than 3 times the median household wealth and double the median for the wealthiest demographic (55ish in the south east). Whichever way you cut it, you are much better off than most people. Stop pretending otherwise.

It is reasonable that your (majority previously untaxed) assets are taxed upon death. If you want to avoid this specifically so you / your partner can stay living in the house, you know what to do. If you don’t marry and IHT means the surviving partner can’t afford to stay in that house, note they would still have far more money than most people in the country and could in no way be described as poor. They would perfectly easily find a suitable place to live - arguably more suitable than a 3 bed would be for a single, childless person.

I can't believe there are people who think you can avoid IHT just by owning as JTs/TiC (and who still think this despite the multiple explanations on this thread!)

Maybe this is a Scots/English law thing, or maybe it has changed, but this is the advice our lawyer gave when we drew up our will in 2006, before we were married. Maybe he said it because we were due to be married. Is it an automatic thing if you are married, or must you be TiC in the will?

Of course they can. I know several couples who have went down that route as they want the legal protection but don’t want to be married

I don’t think it should be relevant how privileged or affluent we are.
A lot of posters have incorrectly assumed that owning the property as joint tenants protects from IHT at the death of the first person in the couple. There is no reason why that shouldn’t be the case for cohabiting couples who own a property as joint tenants as that would protect their home on the first death. They would still pay IHT on any other assets so the differentiation between them and married and civil partners would still exist but their home would be safe until the second death.
I don’t understand what the objection would be to this.
I feel like I’m saying the same thing over and over and the replies don’t address my point.

There is no reason why that shouldn’t be the case for cohabiting couples who own a property as joint tenants as that would protect their home on the first death. They would still pay IHT on any other assets so the differentiation between them and married and civil partners would still exist but their home would be safe until the second death.

Where does it stop? The survivor moves in another cohabitee and kicks the IHT can down the road. That could go on ad infinitum. It seems pretty pointless when a visit to the registry office provides a relatively cheap instant solution.

Because most people realise that tax is a matter of government policy.

It's just an aspect of policy that is designed to encourage people to get married.

If you want the benefit you need to get married. That's the point of it. Nothing to get outraged about.