3 ms·

> If you applied capital gains tax to grandpa's modest gift to his grandchildren the grand children may very well end up with nearly nothing. Quiz time: Capit

> If you applied capital gains tax to grandpa's modest gift to his grandchildren the grand children may very well end up with nearly nothing. Quiz time: Capital gains is 0% for anything less than $40k, 20% for anything over than $400k, and 15% for everything in the middle. How much do you have to inherit for the total effective tax rate to be greater than 95%? > In many states property taxes are reassessed upon property transfer in a will, so if your grandparents/parents had a really good property tax rate, you may end up paying so much tax that you can't afford to keep the house. In most states, property taxes are reassessed frequently (once every low single digit years). The only state where property taxes aren't regularly reassessed appears to be California. And I'm highly unsympathetic when the argument boils down to "we bought this property 50 years ago and we couldn't afford taxes on it if it were assessed at market value."

jmyeet 4y ago
I pretty much agree but want to add some clarifications. > The only state where property taxes aren't regularly reassessed appears to be California. Technically, property taxes are reassessed in California but because of Prop 13, passed in the 1970s, the increase cannot exceed 2% per year. With in inflation in the 70s and 80s, this was a massive boon to incumbent homeowners and their descendants (since that favorable tax rate can be inherited). California is the poster child for this taxpayer-led cash grab but it's not the only one. New York for example has a very complicated property tax system with various caps that amount to much the same thing but nowhere near as extreme. > ... highly unsympathetic when the argument boils down to "we bought this property 50 years ago and we couldn't afford taxes on it if it were assessed at market value." It's actually worse than that. It's always couched in terms of kicking seniors out of their life long homes because they're on a fixed income even though the major beneficiaries are Disney and extremely wealthy people. Worse, property held in LLCs allow you to retain favorable tax treatment even when the LLC changes hands. Disney has to be singled out here because the're still paying 1960s taxes on their land in Anaheim. Back to seniors, it's such a ridiculous argument. For one, you can always treat different taxpayers differently and, for example, freeze propert taxes for seniors until they die. You don't need to give a massive tax benefit to Disney to do that. Interestingly, a state like Texas handles this way better. Property taxes are deferred for seniors until they die. They're still accuring property tax debt but it doesn't hit their immediate incomes. This gives people a choice: stay in their family home and pay taxes when the houses are inherited or downsize to save on taxes. This has the added benefit of freeing up housing stock.
- Test0129 4y ago
  > This gives people a choice: stay in their family home and pay taxes when the houses are inherited or downsize to save on taxes. This sounds like an end-around to the word "theft" to me. This is stealing property. There is no other word for it. > This has the added benefit of freeing up housing stock. Theft is theft no matter how you call you it.

jmyeet 4y ago

I pretty much agree but want to add some clarifications. > The only state where property taxes aren't regularly reassessed appears to be California. Technically, property taxes are reassessed in California but because of Prop 13, passed in the 1970s, the increase cannot exceed 2% per year. With in inflation in the 70s and 80s, this was a massive boon to incumbent homeowners and their descendants (since that favorable tax rate can be inherited). California is the poster child for this taxpayer-led cash grab but it's not the only one. New York for example has a very complicated property tax system with various caps that amount to much the same thing but nowhere near as extreme. > ... highly unsympathetic when the argument boils down to "we bought this property 50 years ago and we couldn't afford taxes on it if it were assessed at market value." It's actually worse than that. It's always couched in terms of kicking seniors out of their life long homes because they're on a fixed income even though the major beneficiaries are Disney and extremely wealthy people. Worse, property held in LLCs allow you to retain favorable tax treatment even when the LLC changes hands. Disney has to be singled out here because the're still paying 1960s taxes on their land in Anaheim. Back to seniors, it's such a ridiculous argument. For one, you can always treat different taxpayers differently and, for example, freeze propert taxes for seniors until they die. You don't need to give a massive tax benefit to Disney to do that. Interestingly, a state like Texas handles this way better. Property taxes are deferred for seniors until they die. They're still accuring property tax debt but it doesn't hit their immediate incomes. This gives people a choice: stay in their family home and pay taxes when the houses are inherited or downsize to save on taxes. This has the added benefit of freeing up housing stock.

Test0129 4y ago
> This gives people a choice: stay in their family home and pay taxes when the houses are inherited or downsize to save on taxes. This sounds like an end-around to the word "theft" to me. This is stealing property. There is no other word for it. > This has the added benefit of freeing up housing stock. Theft is theft no matter how you call you it.