4 ms·

Then the heirs lose out, they probably won't like that too much, nor will the pending decedents be happy knowing that a big chunk of their estate is going to be

Then the heirs lose out, they probably won't like that too much, nor will the pending decedents be happy knowing that a big chunk of their estate is going to be seized. I don't see how this is going to really make higher taxes more palatable.

Kalium 5y ago
You'll have to pardon me if I have limited sympathy for the ability of the heirs to rich (defined here as multiple millions of USD in value) estates as they clamor to inherit tax rates from before their births. I understand the emotional pain of losing the all-important family home, but I am unwilling to structure public policy around vast tax breaks so that families flush with unearned wealth keep it. Nobody likes paying taxes. It's literally never a pleasurable or enjoyable experience. Yet it's one that furthers society and allows it to do things like fund schools - a chronic problem in California.
- yongjik 5y ago
  > Nobody likes paying taxes. It's literally never a pleasurable or enjoyable experience. Not disagreeing with your points, but one major reason that it's "never a pleasurable experience" to pay tax in America is that ideologues deliberately designed the process to be as painful as possible, to give taxation a bad name. Sadly, it's working.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
Frondo 5y ago
I would defer to no less than a luminary like Thomas Jefferson in my attitudes toward the would-be inheritors of all those million-dollar ranch-style SDUs, who said something along the lines of.. > I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, "that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living": that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it. (Though really, even before I knew of Jefferson's attitudes about inherited wealth, I'd read enough to know that divesting children of unearned windfalls isn't necessarily a bad thing. Can't take it with you, ya know.)
kelnos 5y ago
Too bad? Generational wealth transfer is the root of many of society's ills. If parents bought a home in CA in 1980 for $300k, and then did little more than regular upkeep and minor improvements, and then die in 2021, why should their offspring be entitled to a $10M windfall? They've done nothing to earn it, besides being lucky to be born to parents who were lucky enough to be able to buy housing in an area that they were lucky enough to keep living in when that area became popular.
- paisawalla 5y ago
  [flagged]
  - snidane 5y ago
    I think his point is, you don't get to pass wealth not earned by you to your heirs. You had nothing to do with 300k to 10m appreciation, so you nor your heirs are entitled to it. The appreciation is in land, not in the small improvements to the house. Owners never have influence on the price of land. That is strictly determined by the surrounding dwellings.
    - rcpt 5y ago
      > Owners never have influence on the price of land. One of the most frustrating thing about property tax discourse is that people feel like the fact that they hit the jackpot by accident is grounds for a tax cut. As if getting rich by the work of other is more deserving of a break vs. earning your own wealth.
    - paisawalla 5y ago
      > Owners never have influence on the price of land. That is strictly determined by the surrounding dwellings. But then the owners of those surrounding dwellings also had nothing to do with the appreciation of their houses, right? Only the owners of their surroundings added value, and so on. What a contorted argument you'd have to make, to claim that land somehow accrues value due to zero action of the people who happen to occupy it. Land appreciates because of the choices made by the community who lives there, e.g. to attract industry, prioritize certain uses, create or draw desirable businesses, etc. The choices made by your parents, and the other parents from your previous generation, are almost entirely the reason why a the neighborhood you grew up in appreciates. And they make those decisions for your benefit, because they want to create wealth and community for you. The responses to my comment confirm that yes, liberals absolutely believe nobody has a right to investment of their parents. What an alienating perspective, I hope you guys run with it and shout it from the roofs.

Kalium 5y ago

You'll have to pardon me if I have limited sympathy for the ability of the heirs to rich (defined here as multiple millions of USD in value) estates as they clamor to inherit tax rates from before their births. I understand the emotional pain of losing the all-important family home, but I am unwilling to structure public policy around vast tax breaks so that families flush with unearned wealth keep it. Nobody likes paying taxes. It's literally never a pleasurable or enjoyable experience. Yet it's one that furthers society and allows it to do things like fund schools - a chronic problem in California.

yongjik 5y ago
> Nobody likes paying taxes. It's literally never a pleasurable or enjoyable experience. Not disagreeing with your points, but one major reason that it's "never a pleasurable experience" to pay tax in America is that ideologues deliberately designed the process to be as painful as possible, to give taxation a bad name. Sadly, it's working.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

Frondo 5y ago

I would defer to no less than a luminary like Thomas Jefferson in my attitudes toward the would-be inheritors of all those million-dollar ranch-style SDUs, who said something along the lines of.. > I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, "that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living": that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it. (Though really, even before I knew of Jefferson's attitudes about inherited wealth, I'd read enough to know that divesting children of unearned windfalls isn't necessarily a bad thing. Can't take it with you, ya know.)

kelnos 5y ago

Too bad? Generational wealth transfer is the root of many of society's ills. If parents bought a home in CA in 1980 for $300k, and then did little more than regular upkeep and minor improvements, and then die in 2021, why should their offspring be entitled to a $10M windfall? They've done nothing to earn it, besides being lucky to be born to parents who were lucky enough to be able to buy housing in an area that they were lucky enough to keep living in when that area became popular.

paisawalla 5y ago
[flagged]
- snidane 5y ago
  I think his point is, you don't get to pass wealth not earned by you to your heirs. You had nothing to do with 300k to 10m appreciation, so you nor your heirs are entitled to it. The appreciation is in land, not in the small improvements to the house. Owners never have influence on the price of land. That is strictly determined by the surrounding dwellings.
  - rcpt 5y ago
    > Owners never have influence on the price of land. One of the most frustrating thing about property tax discourse is that people feel like the fact that they hit the jackpot by accident is grounds for a tax cut. As if getting rich by the work of other is more deserving of a break vs. earning your own wealth.
  - paisawalla 5y ago
    > Owners never have influence on the price of land. That is strictly determined by the surrounding dwellings. But then the owners of those surrounding dwellings also had nothing to do with the appreciation of their houses, right? Only the owners of their surroundings added value, and so on. What a contorted argument you'd have to make, to claim that land somehow accrues value due to zero action of the people who happen to occupy it. Land appreciates because of the choices made by the community who lives there, e.g. to attract industry, prioritize certain uses, create or draw desirable businesses, etc. The choices made by your parents, and the other parents from your previous generation, are almost entirely the reason why a the neighborhood you grew up in appreciates. And they make those decisions for your benefit, because they want to create wealth and community for you. The responses to my comment confirm that yes, liberals absolutely believe nobody has a right to investment of their parents. What an alienating perspective, I hope you guys run with it and shout it from the roofs.