Inheritance and nanny
I was interested to see a UK law commission has produced a position paper on what they see as potential law-changes with regard to inheritance and people who die intestate. They're proposing that marriage no longer be pre-requisite for someone to inherit the estate. If you've been together for two years the surviving partner gets half the estate, and at 5 becomes the heir.
Blink.
Is this same bunch who said lifetime spinster sisters who live together cannot enjoy family status (ie when one dies the other must sell their home to pay inheritance tax)
Now the logical answer - to me - is don't be a plonker and die intestate. And formalise your relationship and its responsiblities and obligations if it going on a long time (no actually I don't care if you're gay or polyandrous - that is you and your partner/s choice, and you should be able to formalise it, if death may say leave one party without a home or with kids to look after. If they'd said make that easy,and beneficial, that would have my support.)
But let's take a hypothetical case. Joe divorces Edna - to whom he pays maintenance. Joe inherited a two room apartment from his granny, and Fred - a guy he worked with - boards there. It's a casual arrangement (like many of these) and Fred gives Joe 500 bucks in cash every month. They live as bachelor men (just as spinster sisters might). Five years and one day later, Joe steps off the pavement and is his hit by a Mack truck - dead on impact. Edna's maintenance check dies with him. But... she still has the apartment to sell. Except Fred says, sorry, we've been together 5 years. Edna has hissy fit. But short of having had a spycam in their bedrooms bedroom she has not a leg to stand on. Anyway, why does a partner actually have to have had a physical relationship? There are probably a good few married couples out there who haven't had sex for years. Of course she might argue they hadn't been togther 5 years but four years and 364 days... (as further example of 'ridiculous')
I think I see what they were trying to achieve, but maybe a little less nanny and a bit more advantage would work better...
Blink.
Is this same bunch who said lifetime spinster sisters who live together cannot enjoy family status (ie when one dies the other must sell their home to pay inheritance tax)
Now the logical answer - to me - is don't be a plonker and die intestate. And formalise your relationship and its responsiblities and obligations if it going on a long time (no actually I don't care if you're gay or polyandrous - that is you and your partner/s choice, and you should be able to formalise it, if death may say leave one party without a home or with kids to look after. If they'd said make that easy,and beneficial, that would have my support.)
But let's take a hypothetical case. Joe divorces Edna - to whom he pays maintenance. Joe inherited a two room apartment from his granny, and Fred - a guy he worked with - boards there. It's a casual arrangement (like many of these) and Fred gives Joe 500 bucks in cash every month. They live as bachelor men (just as spinster sisters might). Five years and one day later, Joe steps off the pavement and is his hit by a Mack truck - dead on impact. Edna's maintenance check dies with him. But... she still has the apartment to sell. Except Fred says, sorry, we've been together 5 years. Edna has hissy fit. But short of having had a spycam in their bedrooms bedroom she has not a leg to stand on. Anyway, why does a partner actually have to have had a physical relationship? There are probably a good few married couples out there who haven't had sex for years. Of course she might argue they hadn't been togther 5 years but four years and 364 days... (as further example of 'ridiculous')
I think I see what they were trying to achieve, but maybe a little less nanny and a bit more advantage would work better...