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's absolutely fair. They absolutely chose not to form a financial partnership. They chose this!

This thread really is reinforcing the importance of knowing your rights and making a decision based on the legal status / protection of marriage and not hearsay.

That's one way of looking at it, if you were being charitable

my sister and had partner earn similar amounts, have no children and have about ten years left on a mortgage for a house worth 200k. Neither of them have savings but they both have pensions.
They've been together twenty years and say there's no point to getting married and don't want to. Are there still financial savings for them if they get married?

OP has explained.

She doesn't want her partner getting his mitts on her assets.

You can leave it to your kids. Your tax free threshold to children is £500,000. No inheritance tax if your estate is worth less than this.

Whataboutery isn't the point.
Just because I am single, my kids shouldn't be punished more than those who are coupled and had an easier life.

Marriage is a legal contract. When people say ‘it’s just a piece of paper..’ it’s a bloody important one. If I die everything I have becomes my husbands and vice versa. I am entitled to parts of his pensions etc.

You can get married and not change your name etc, nothing on the face of it changes but you have that protection you want.

Which is fair

you cannot expect to get the benefits you want without the negatives

a civil partnership is easy to do if you want it and with it comes certain benefits (Martin Lewis has set them out well) but you can’t pick or choose all of them

there are certain things you can recreate without getting married (wills etc)

Yes. I’m in the same situation minus the kids.

She could write a will!

Solicitors explain this really clearly and it depends how you buy the houseit has literally nothing to do with marriage.

Before we got married, we bought the house as "joint tenants" and if one of us died the other got the whole lot with NO INHERITANCE TAX. The other way is Tenants in Common, mainly used by groups of friends for example, or siblings, this means you each own "half" (or even less if you buy as 3 or 4 people as housemates) and then when you die it becomes part of your distinct estate And goes to whoever is in your will and therefore is subject to inheritance tax. Basically you choose to buy a house "together" in which case if one you dies then the other automatically owns it all, or you decide to split the house in "shares" and you distinctly own your share, you can sell your share, gift it, have it inherited by someone - that share is exclusive to you but is therefore subject to inheritance tax - that method of buying is not suitable for life-partners.
The reason there is no fuss about this is that you're talking nonsense, solicitors explain the two types of purchase if you're unmarried and then you choose. So just choose the non inheritance tax option if your house buying partner is also the person you want to inherit the house when you die🤔

Marriage has nothing to do with it, it's purely the type of house buyer you register as when you buy and what your solicitor and you believe is the best option.

Easier to do if you live up north.

I don’t think cohabiting couples should get the benefits of marriage without also having the downsides of marriage. If they are to legally have both without marrying, then the concept of marriage becomes redundant to all and everyone is effectively opted in.

Makes more sense for marriage to be an opt in situation (which it currently is) and you accept the benefits and drawbacks of whichever decision you make (to marry or not to marry)

Ooo errr missis !

He’s welcome to them if I die but not if we separate

I think this is called having your cake and eating it.
You need legal advice on what route is most wise for someone in your financial situation. Also consider that IHT rules are changing so that pension pots will now be subject to IT.
If your other half's pension pot is sizeable and you're the named beneficiary, you'll be getting 40% less once the change to the law comes in. The way to avoid that is civil partnership/marriage.

Except for the part where... they can leave their home to their kids? With IHT only due on any value above £500k..?

If you are a Joint Tenant then your share of the property passes to the other joint owner on death without IHT

If you are Tenants in Common and pass your share to the other owner then it is taxable BUT you can leave them a life interest which the beneficiary would have to pay tax on when the person with the life interest dies

I daresay someone has already said something like this (and there is another thread, too). The reason this happens is because a couple who are not married have not done due diligence with their wills, financial arrangements - the complex remedy. They also have a simple remedy - marry or become civil partners. All those 'romantic' death bed proposals by celebrities are based on this: they marry on their deathbeds to avoid IHT.
It is impossible to legislate in the way you imply so that unmarried couples (or couples not in a civil partnership) can have some of the rights of married couples (civil partners) because there is no contract. Marriage and civil partnership are legally enforceable contracts - why do those who ceaselessly moan about cohabitees being disadvantaged not realise this?
The solution to the perceived injustice lies not in trying to provide unworkable solutions for cohabitees, but to teach young people (and others) the difference between living with someone and having a marriage/civil partnership contract.

They should look in to it or at least get their wills sorted or their money , on death, won’t go where they want it to!

Why should they? Why should people be dictated to about the way they live their lives?

What happens in the scenario where relatives or friends buy a house together?

Because when, at what point is it classed as a marriage? 6 months, one year, when children come along, 20 years.

What if I didnt marry because I own my own home and want it to go to my children, but along comes my partner and now after more than 15 years he's entitled to half my house? I didnt agree to that, if I did agree, I'd marry him. So now I'm stuck with him, If we "divorce" he gets half my house, if we stay together and I die first, he gets half my house. The only way to prevent this is stay together until he dies after me. Then I get to leave my house to my kids.

Seems like theres already a way to do agree to this and its called getting married or civil partnership. Both cheap options and guaranteed.

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?

This is presumably to avoid people being coerced into marriage, marriages taking place to get round immigration laws etc. Plus you need to show the registrar certain documents, give proof of your identity etc. It's far more than just a simple contract.

There has to be some benefits to being married!

There’s no public outrage because it’s something that can be easily sorted by the couples themselves!