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?

What is confusing about it? I want children with my DP, but I don't want to be financially tied to him. If we break up, I don't want him to walk away with half of my house and half of my pension.

In what way is marriage “not just a legal contract”?

there may be people or institutions who view it as more, but from the perspective of the state, it’s not much different than a driver’s license or the forms to create a corporation.

Only if it breaches the inheritance tax threshold.

I own a house as joint tenant with my partner. The threshold is £325,000. Our house (mortgaged) is worth (example) £400,000. So if I die, my share is worth £200,000. He wouldn’t pay inheritance tax because it isn’t worth enough (although you need to take in to account savings, pensions etc he might also inherit from me).

Joint tenants or tenants in common, you still pay inheritance tax IF your estate is worth that much.

Added risk: if you are tenants in common, your partner could leave his share of the house in his will to someone else (his kids for example) who could then force a sale when he dies. Also leaving you homeless.

People need to check the legalities carefully!!!! With a solicitor ideally, not randoms on the internet.

Because marriage IS a legal contract. That's why the Registrar is there.

If it wasn't they wouldn't be needed

They can enter a civil partnership, or get married. It's hardly a secret. It's up to individuals to weigh up the risks and benefits and choose accordingly.

This isn't Australia.

I am in this situation. I don't want to get married to my partner, mainly because I cannot be faffed with all party nonsense. Even a civil partnership needs a ceremony. Why cannot it be a simple form, done online for those who don't want all the nonsense? If it's a contract, then it should just be able to be signed and sent back, surely?

So if you’re committed to your partner, marriage (or civil partnership) is the way to legally say that.

I always think it’s odd how many people want formal, legal recognition of their relationship but won’t formally and legally recognise it themselves.

I cannot be faffed with all party nonsense. Even a civil partnership needs a ceremony.

Does it ? News to me.

It needs witnesses, just like signing a will does. You can go to the office with two witnesses and have it be done.

But how are the government or solicitors or executors supposed to differentiate between a cohabiting couple where they want each other to inherit, vs a cohabiting couple that do not want each other to inherit? Like a what point is a partner supposed to cross that threshold?

Thank you! At least one person understands

@Blusterylimp then they can get a civil partnership.

It's very easy to formalise the relationship for a legal perspective and they don't have to tell anyone they know.

Fine if they don't want to get married but then they don't get any benefits or security marriage provides. It's not difficult to understand

And nor do the electorate want it to be. It's an issue, for instance, when people with DC meet a new partner and want to cohabit but actively don't want their new DP to be their automatic heir because it would cut out their children. If we had defacto laws, they would have to marry or live separately unless they wanted to deal with quite a lot of complexity around wills. I think financial enmeshment should be opt-in, especially since few people make adequate wills.

You can just air an appointment at the registry office, and have a civil ceremony which is very quick and is basically just signing the document in the presence of a couple of witnesses. You don’t have to have a full on ceremony and party.

It's not fair for someone to lose half their house, which they bought and paid for, when their co-habiting partner leaves them because the State has decreed them a partnership with the same rules as marriage just because they lived together.

It's not fair for someone's children from a previous relationship to be effectively disinherited when their widowed parent dies intestate, because that parent brought their new partner into the former marital home, and the State decreed that they had a long enough relationship to give them the same rights as marriage.

Be careful what you wish for. There are presumably reasons why you haven't gone and signed the Civil Partnership registry in your lunch break and those reasons still stand (and if the reason is just we haven't got round to it, then that's easily fixed).

You know that the party afterwards isn't compulsory, right? And can you really not see why you need to have the ceremony in person rather than filling in forms online? Really?

You think there ought to be outrage because you don't want to sign a contract with witnesses present? How silly.
There were 5 people in the room when I got married. 6 if you include my baby. No party was necessary.

Then they take the consequences 🤷🏻‍♀️
Rather than assume the legal system will bend itself around their wants…

It needs to be witnessed. You don't have to have vows or any attendants. You can do it as a signing of paperwork at the register office on a weekday morning very cheaply, with randos off MN as witnesses and zero ceremony.

There's no need for a party!
Make the appointment at the Registry Office.
Turn up at the allotted time. Grab two strangers off the street or 2 people that work there. Sign the forms. Done.

Cf. Nil band rates, survivorship rules, tenancies in common etc.

No party needed for marriage, a wedding is something else.

Are you confusing the two OP?

I thought UK courts now recognise prenups.