Cohabitation rights.

[blup]

HMRC can’t bring the claim on behalf of the co habitee, even big brother doesn’t go that far, but there will be a right to claim on an intestacy or if you’re left out of a will. Some people will be diarising ahead and kicking their partner out three years minus a day.

 

[King Billy]

our dictator president

Wasn't he elected in a free and fair election?

 

[King Billy]

you end up with dil doh drag queens reading nursery rhymers to pre school children

Ha, the good old British tradition of pantomime at Christmas.

 

[King Billy]

an attack on marriage -
a WEF dictate -
breaks up the idea of a family unit,
dil doh drag queens
nursery rhymers to pre school children

You do seem to have a habit of mixing in a load of gripes about other topics when there is no relation to the topic.

So is this another policy that was never in the manifesto - was never asked for - and can not be blamed on the conservatives - as "they proposed it first" and yet another policy with un intended consequences that everyone except labour forever voters can see.

The policy is to award long term relationships similar financial security as married couples.
I know some couples who have been together for more then 20 years, but they felt no need to marry, although one couple did in their later life after 30 odd years of being together. They openly admit that they did so purely to facilitate the legal arrangements on one of their demise.
It prevents a selfish untrustworthy partner kicking their partner out of the "marital" home, leaving the one partner well out of pocket.
I have another friend who have had many live-in short term relationships. They are not the sort to use such methods to enrich themselves.
Similarly, I know of at least one couple who lent their off-spring a decent sum of money towards their first house purchase, but drew up the equivalent of a pre-nuptial agreement, to protect their 'loan' to their off-spring, in the case of them seperating.
So their off-spring's (i.e. the parent's) contribution to the purchase of the 'marital' home was recognised and protected.
Why wouldn't you?

 

[King Billy]

Just their usual patronising way of ensuring all the stupid people are "protected".

Do you think stupid people deserve to be deprived of their financial invetsments?

But it will do a lot more harm than good.

Present a scenario in which you think your comment applies.

I really don't generally approve of the concept of an unelected House of Lords. But at times like this it's good to know that they will definitely pull this apart and point out all the many issues. It shouldn't be necessary,

That's their job, even when it isn't necessary.
Usually you need to pull things apart to find the issue.

but sadly this government needs a babysitter.

Ah, the intelligent comment on the current government.

 

[King Billy]

Correct you must get the opt out certificated by a lawyer.

You are free to divorce, buy a house, get married, buy a car, sign an employment contract, get a loan, write a Will, donate an organ all without using lawyer, but this law says you must have a lawyer if you want to opt out.

Maybe it will reduce the number and expense of current divorce proceedings.

 

[King Billy]

This law allows someone to move with a financially better off partner, quit their job, go off with their personal trainer and then claim a slice of the ex's assets when the relationship ends.

How so?

 

[King Billy]

Here's something else if you both have a house and decide to live together in one of them then after 3 years you will be liable for 20% capital gains tax on the that is sold. CGT looks set to be increased to 20%

Where in the proposals does it say that?

 

[Koolpc]

Woof!

 

[motorbiking]

Here's something else if you both have a house and decide to live together in one of them then after 3 years you will be liable for 20% capital gains tax on the that is sold. CGT looks set to be increased to 20%

So long as they don’t get married or their name is Angela Rayner, there is no CGT to pay.

 

[motorbiking]

Maybe it will reduce the number and expense of current divorce proceedings.

It just added another pool of 3.5m people in need of “divorce” lawyers if their relationship ends. Or they want to Protect themselves.

 

[motorbiking]

How so?

They are acquiring marriage-lite like rights over their former partners assets based on their needs.

Imagine you own your house, have savings, pension etc and your partner has nothing. You invite them to move in, but after 3.5 years the relationship ends. They have no job, that can’t pay a mortgage and can’t afford to rent on their own. That’s your problem now. Even though you never married. They can claim some of yours to meet their needs.

 

[aveatry]

Where in the proposals does it say that?

When treated the same as a married couple after 3 years the house becomes a second home just like it would have been if they were married.