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?

it isn't just the control over your well being, if you died atm, your family could legally cut your partner out of anything to do with your funeral and burial.

Choosing to co-habit is a conscious choice NOT to form a legal partnership.

Putting wills in place doesn't solve it either because a partner can change their will without telling you.

I have allowed a boyfriend to move in with me in the past. This was certainly not an indication that I wanted to share my worldly goods with him. It just meant he was between jobs/home and I was being helpful on a temporary basis.

Legal marriage under the laws of England & Wales (or Scotland or Northeren Ireland) or a legally recognised civil partnership is the only way to protect yourself from IHT.

^This

The state has provided you with two viable options, if this is the legal status you want your relationship to have. Just use one of them.

Yep, it’s not fair for someone to lose their house when their partner dies because they need to pay IHT on half the properties value.

My point is that why shouldn’t cohabiting couples get the same legal protection as marriage

Because they don't want the same obligations either?

Or know how the law works

Perfectly fair - you knew the rules.

In Australia you have the same rights as a married couple after cohabiting for 2 years

It's not fair for the state to have to bear the costs and resources of administering claims when, as will inevitably happen, it isn't clear who was cohabiting with whom and someone tries it on.

Yes, that is a fair point

And the same loss of rights too? Because there's some of both, when you get married.

I haven’t read every post so apologies if already been said, but a lot of people still think being a Common Law wife or husband is a thing and it will afford them some rights and protection.

Marriage is all about property and inheritance.

Been that way since the time of the Ancients.

The religious and "moral" aspects got tacked on to it a very long time afterwards.

But as has been pointed out, it's easy to solve with a civil partnership.

Not necessarily very wealthy. If you die relatively young (e.g. 60ish) without children at a time when you have prepared for retirement so that you have half a property and funds in savings and pension (especially as pensions are no longer going to be IHT free from under 75s after recent budget).
Unmarried people without children to leave property to pay a lot more inheritance tax to the State than anyone else if they die with over £325k in assets.

DH and I got married purely because of the legal implications of doing so. I am very ambivalent about marriage as a declaration of love/commitment and never felt any urge to be married. We had a registry office do with no guests. But the financial implications for us were important for long-term security on both sides so we got married.

I don't think that should change, as people should have the option of not tying themselves financially so closely with another person if they don't want to. Particularly in a society where living costs really incentivise people to live together when the relationship is otherwise not that committed.

However, there is a lot of ignorance around this. So many people still believe in the common-law status which just doesn't exist. I'd like to see this taught in PSHE as part of practical life skills/knowledge that all people should know (which could also include things like understanding interest rates in credit cards and mortgages).

I'd also like to see a slight change where children are involved, so that the parent with primary care has some protections even if unmarried, and child support needs to be tightened up significantly.

Not fair? Are you 6?

This has been A Big Topic for decades. 🙄

Well you know what the remedy is now, don't you. Cohabiting couples are basically housemates from a legal perspective.

Might be easily solvable but a lot of couples don’t want to get married.

Well they (and everyone who does get married tbh) need to consider the benefits and negatives of getting married for them as a couple. But you can't decide not to get married because it doesn't work for you, and then want the benefits of being married.

In my case, because DS was a (much wanted) accident.

I already owned my own home in a beautiful rural area, outright. Ds' dad is not good with money, and I would never risk ds' home.

Ds' dad also had different priorities and wanted to live in a city in the Midlands which is my idea of hell.

We've co-parented successfully for 16 years. I have no claim on his house. He has no claim on mine. It works for all of us.

The state has provided you with a cheap and simple bit of paperwork you could sign to clear you of that IHT - two in fact - and you've declined.

It's old news

Yes, it worries me how many people think this is a thing.

As a retired IFA, I have known more that one "common law wife" made homeless because she did not think getting her partner to make a Will was necessary and she had some sort of claim on her partner's estate and "their" house.

Plus, if you're in Scotland, be aware that the Court of Session has effectively outlawed "marriages of habit and repute" as well.

Marriage. So much financial protection from one small piece of paper.