Consultation on unmarried couples sharing assets when they break up

[CruCru]

There’s a thing in the Times today which says that there is a consultation on unmarried couples sharing assets after a break up. Pretty much, if they separate they could be entitled to a share of a house sale and maintenance. They could also be given automatic inheritance rights if their partner dies without leaving a Will.

The proposal is that people who live together for three years or who have a child together would have these rights.

AIBU to be a bit conflicted on this? On the one hand, I really wish schools covered marriage and the rights and responsibilities it gives you. I’ve talked to women (who live with their partners) who were really taken aback to find out that they didn’t automatically get the same rights as married couples. On the other hand, when I was young (late teens / early twenties), I lived with a boyfriend who was a bit of a sponger - I’d have been really annoyed to find out that he was entitled to any of my money when we split up.

No, but my point is simply that, if there is an accepted standard way to register or obtain something from/through the government, your choice is either to follow that standard method or not to follow it and then do without any benefits or privileges that it might have conferred on you.

You could also say that a will is 'just a piece of paper', but it's the accepted way to convey your wishes for your assets after you die. It's mad to effectively say "I'm pointedly not going to tell you what I would want, but I still expect you to know exactly what I would want regardless".

As has already been said numerous times on this thread, it's not a neutral thing: for somebody in a couple to be entitled to a share of their ex-partner's individual assets, that necessarily means that the person whose assets they are must lose some/all of them. If you've deliberately sidestepped the accepted way whereby you consent to splitting assets equally should you divorce - marriage - why on earth should the government or anybody get to ignore your decision and distribute your assets how they see fit regardless?

Should we also make wills non-binding, if the government or somebody else 'reckons' that they should know better than you whom you would have wanted to leave your money to after your death?

We need to start treating adults like adults and understand that not getting married is a choice, just as choosing to get married is also a choice. It's a huge insult to tell people who have carefully considered their circumstances and made a decision not to get married that the government knows better than they do and has decided to forcibly effectively marry them off regardless.

I was merely commenting on the many posts saying that it wouldn't or couldn't work. Whether it should or not has nothing to do with me.

Examples please? Personally I think those countries are more forward thinking and modern than the hidebound UK.