6 ms·

> If people had to pay inheritance tax on their family home, how many could not afford such a tax bill and would have to get rid of their family home to please

> If people had to pay inheritance tax on their family home, how many could not afford such a tax bill and would have to get rid of their family home to please the tax man. so if they can't afford to pay tax on the windfall, they'd have to sell the house and buy a smaller one. is that the end of the world? > Regarding the cost basis rest that is so people can upgrade their house without having to pay a tax bill what they have in many european countries is that you can do this only on your primary residence. so you let people upgrade their homes, but not their rental properties

namelessoracle 4y ago
So a family on hard times should be forced to leave their grandmothers home when she dies and hope they can find a new one? Gentrification can easily push a property in the place they've lived their whole lives out of their price range. And the family home might not have been super well kept up so the "windfall" isn't as big as the property values in the area may reflect. This happens now with gentrification in big cities, it would get worse with what you are saying. Being able to leave something to your descendants is a critical part of society. If people know they cant leave anything behind they start acting differently (and not in a good way). I understand a key part of communism is you and your family own nothing, but trust me you don't want people to have a use it or lose it attitude towards everything.
- charlescearl 4y ago
  > I understand a key part of communism is you and your family own nothing As I understand, a key part is coming to the realization you and your family have already been robbed (or evicted to go back to your example), and then to ask what's next? At least as I understand Marx, particularly in Capital v. III, the point is to construct a world in which poor & working class regain collective control of resources like food, shelter, health that sustain life. The abolition of transfer of private property is intended to end the cycle of extracted (stolen) life-sustaining resources ending up in the hands of the same family (or dominant group). As a case in point, the theft of Black farm land has been well documented https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-black-farmers-lost-326-bln-worth-land-20th-century-study-2022-05-02/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-black-farmers-lost-326-b.... The point of communist organizing in Alabama during the 1930's -- detailed in Robin DG Kelley's "Hammer and Hoe" -- was to protect Black small farm owners from theft of their meager lands, and to take actions so that sharecroppers (tenant farm workers) could collectively control enough land to sustain themselves.
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  Yes, if you can't afford your house you need to find a new one. The family will come out well ahead here because the tax would only be on a percentage of the houses value, they can use the proceeds to buy a new, cheaper house. No one has the right to live anywhere just because their grandma did.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- namdnay 4y ago
  In what universe does paying tax on what you inherit equate to communism?
  - ROTMetro 4y ago
    When you effectively take someone's home for government benefit. People think that when they buy property they own it. You're model is more the China version. You don't own property, you only lease it from the government. Hence, your model looks more like the communist model than the traditional Western one.
    - 8note 4y ago
      It's basically the American model - if somebody isn't improving their land, you take it from them by force and sell it at cheap prices to people who will. That's why it's a bunch of white people with title now, rather than all being native americans
    - seiferteric 4y ago
      Inheritance = Income, and income is generally taxed. The fact that that inheritance might be real estate is irrelevant.
    - namdnay 4y ago
      Inheritance tax is paid by the inheritor, not the deceased. It’s not a property tax, it’s an income tax. If you’re lucky enough to receive a house as an inheritance, you pay tax on that, like every other income.
    - scythe 4y ago
      >When you effectively take someone's home for government benefit. You mean like how all the Interstate Highways got built? Except that wasn't "effectively", it was literally.
    - namlem 4y ago
      The government isn't taking the house, a private buyer is purchasing it for its market value. Paying taxes on income is not communism lol.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- malfist 4y ago
  Yes, won't somebody think of that poor family on hard times inheriting an estate worth more than 12 million. How could we ask them to pay taxes?
  - lozenge 4y ago
    It's any estate worth less than 12 million.
    - malfist 4y ago
      No. The estate tax doesn't start until the inheritance is over $12 million. So they have to inherit a $12m estate before they're taxed, if it's less, no estate tax. And they don't pay taxes on that $12m if they're over the $12m, only the amount that it's over that $12m. If it's worth $12,000,001, they pay taxes on only $1. Sources: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleaebeling/2021/11/11/new-higher-estate-and-gift-tax-limits-for-2022-couples-can-pass-on-720000-more-tax-free/?sh=ef89796174f7 https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleaebeling/2021/11/11/new-hi...
- scythe 4y ago
  >I understand a key part of communism is you and your family own nothing No it isn't. https://www.workers.org/private-property/ https://www.workers.org/private-property/ >Private property, to a communist, is not your shoes or toothbrush, or even your house. >Those things are called personal property and under socialism and under communism they continue to belong to workers in much the same manner as they do now. Criticize people for what they actually believe, not what you imagine they believe.
  - namelessoracle 4y ago
    So why does China refuse to sell land to its citizens and only leases?
    - scythe 4y ago
      I can't defend any particular policy of any particular place. I don't think I would call myself a communist, either. But restricting land ownership is a common feature of technocracy in dense urban environments. I seem to recall that the UK does something similar. Even in the US, when you "own" a condo, you are subject to various liens and easements, and can under certain circumstances be forced to sell. China, being rather crowded, likely has created policies to manage land availability. Communism is, primarily and essentially, about the end of money. Other features of socialist countries are largely the result of how some theorists planned to achieve communism, although they invariably fail. (Some people insist on adding "so far".) Some communists on Quora directly addressed the question of homeownership here: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-general-view-on-owning-private-property-in-socialism-Subtitle-In-a-hypothetical-socialist-country-can-an-individual-own-their-own-house-car-clothes-etc-And-if-so-what-are-the-conditions-if-any https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-general-view-on-owning-pri... Somehow, all kinds of unrelated policies get called "communism" or "Marxism", even when they directly contradict what Marx said (e.g. restrictions on gun ownership). I don't think it's helpful to policy debates to have this syncretistic demon hanging around appropriating the bad name of communism.
    - kelnos 4y ago
      Assuming that's true (I have no knowledge of how Chinese real estate works), then that's because China is an authoritarian country that has decided it wants to control every aspect of citizens' lives. That can be a feature of any economic system, if the government is powerful enough, and has nothing to do with communism.
seiferteric 4y ago
If you had to pay the tax you could probably just finance it anyway instead of paying it all at once so it would be just like having a new (small) mortgage.
- l33t2328 4y ago
  That’s what every parent hopes to leave their kids with: an obligation
  - NoSorryCannot 4y ago
    Oooor they can sell it, as originally stated. Goodness. The point is reduce land entitlement a little bit. Yes, there's going to be some light incentive to cut loose and that's OK.
    - foobarian 4y ago
      Now the US is way ahead of the game here compared to Europe. There are no property taxes in most of Europe and families hang on to their homes for generations.
      - japanuspus 4y ago
        This appears to differ across Europe. I know for a fact (through living here) that Denmark and probably the rest of Scandinavia has property tax and inheritance tax -- holding on to family property is almost as expensive as buying new property. Which part of Europe are you referring to? I once had Greek colleague who complained about having to maintain three generations worth of houses, so that might be one place where things are as you describe?
        foobarian 4y ago
        Right, Europe is bound to be diverse on this point. I have exposure to Balkan countries and the UK (which, while they do have non-zero rates, still have them far lower what I'm used to in New England).

namelessoracle 4y ago

So a family on hard times should be forced to leave their grandmothers home when she dies and hope they can find a new one? Gentrification can easily push a property in the place they've lived their whole lives out of their price range. And the family home might not have been super well kept up so the "windfall" isn't as big as the property values in the area may reflect. This happens now with gentrification in big cities, it would get worse with what you are saying. Being able to leave something to your descendants is a critical part of society. If people know they cant leave anything behind they start acting differently (and not in a good way). I understand a key part of communism is you and your family own nothing, but trust me you don't want people to have a use it or lose it attitude towards everything.

charlescearl 4y ago
> I understand a key part of communism is you and your family own nothing As I understand, a key part is coming to the realization you and your family have already been robbed (or evicted to go back to your example), and then to ask what's next? At least as I understand Marx, particularly in Capital v. III, the point is to construct a world in which poor & working class regain collective control of resources like food, shelter, health that sustain life. The abolition of transfer of private property is intended to end the cycle of extracted (stolen) life-sustaining resources ending up in the hands of the same family (or dominant group). As a case in point, the theft of Black farm land has been well documented https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-black-farmers-lost-326-bln-worth-land-20th-century-study-2022-05-02/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-black-farmers-lost-326-b.... The point of communist organizing in Alabama during the 1930's -- detailed in Robin DG Kelley's "Hammer and Hoe" -- was to protect Black small farm owners from theft of their meager lands, and to take actions so that sharecroppers (tenant farm workers) could collectively control enough land to sustain themselves.
colinmhayes 4y ago
Yes, if you can't afford your house you need to find a new one. The family will come out well ahead here because the tax would only be on a percentage of the houses value, they can use the proceeds to buy a new, cheaper house. No one has the right to live anywhere just because their grandma did.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
namdnay 4y ago
In what universe does paying tax on what you inherit equate to communism?
- ROTMetro 4y ago
  When you effectively take someone's home for government benefit. People think that when they buy property they own it. You're model is more the China version. You don't own property, you only lease it from the government. Hence, your model looks more like the communist model than the traditional Western one.
  - 8note 4y ago
    It's basically the American model - if somebody isn't improving their land, you take it from them by force and sell it at cheap prices to people who will. That's why it's a bunch of white people with title now, rather than all being native americans
  - seiferteric 4y ago
    Inheritance = Income, and income is generally taxed. The fact that that inheritance might be real estate is irrelevant.
  - namdnay 4y ago
    Inheritance tax is paid by the inheritor, not the deceased. It’s not a property tax, it’s an income tax. If you’re lucky enough to receive a house as an inheritance, you pay tax on that, like every other income.
  - scythe 4y ago
    >When you effectively take someone's home for government benefit. You mean like how all the Interstate Highways got built? Except that wasn't "effectively", it was literally.
  - namlem 4y ago
    The government isn't taking the house, a private buyer is purchasing it for its market value. Paying taxes on income is not communism lol.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
malfist 4y ago
Yes, won't somebody think of that poor family on hard times inheriting an estate worth more than 12 million. How could we ask them to pay taxes?
- lozenge 4y ago
  It's any estate worth less than 12 million.
  - malfist 4y ago
    No. The estate tax doesn't start until the inheritance is over $12 million. So they have to inherit a $12m estate before they're taxed, if it's less, no estate tax. And they don't pay taxes on that $12m if they're over the $12m, only the amount that it's over that $12m. If it's worth $12,000,001, they pay taxes on only $1. Sources: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleaebeling/2021/11/11/new-higher-estate-and-gift-tax-limits-for-2022-couples-can-pass-on-720000-more-tax-free/?sh=ef89796174f7 https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleaebeling/2021/11/11/new-hi...
scythe 4y ago
>I understand a key part of communism is you and your family own nothing No it isn't. https://www.workers.org/private-property/ https://www.workers.org/private-property/ >Private property, to a communist, is not your shoes or toothbrush, or even your house. >Those things are called personal property and under socialism and under communism they continue to belong to workers in much the same manner as they do now. Criticize people for what they actually believe, not what you imagine they believe.
- namelessoracle 4y ago
  So why does China refuse to sell land to its citizens and only leases?
  - scythe 4y ago
    I can't defend any particular policy of any particular place. I don't think I would call myself a communist, either. But restricting land ownership is a common feature of technocracy in dense urban environments. I seem to recall that the UK does something similar. Even in the US, when you "own" a condo, you are subject to various liens and easements, and can under certain circumstances be forced to sell. China, being rather crowded, likely has created policies to manage land availability. Communism is, primarily and essentially, about the end of money. Other features of socialist countries are largely the result of how some theorists planned to achieve communism, although they invariably fail. (Some people insist on adding "so far".) Some communists on Quora directly addressed the question of homeownership here: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-general-view-on-owning-private-property-in-socialism-Subtitle-In-a-hypothetical-socialist-country-can-an-individual-own-their-own-house-car-clothes-etc-And-if-so-what-are-the-conditions-if-any https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-general-view-on-owning-pri... Somehow, all kinds of unrelated policies get called "communism" or "Marxism", even when they directly contradict what Marx said (e.g. restrictions on gun ownership). I don't think it's helpful to policy debates to have this syncretistic demon hanging around appropriating the bad name of communism.
  - kelnos 4y ago
    Assuming that's true (I have no knowledge of how Chinese real estate works), then that's because China is an authoritarian country that has decided it wants to control every aspect of citizens' lives. That can be a feature of any economic system, if the government is powerful enough, and has nothing to do with communism.

seiferteric 4y ago

If you had to pay the tax you could probably just finance it anyway instead of paying it all at once so it would be just like having a new (small) mortgage.

l33t2328 4y ago
That’s what every parent hopes to leave their kids with: an obligation
- NoSorryCannot 4y ago
  Oooor they can sell it, as originally stated. Goodness. The point is reduce land entitlement a little bit. Yes, there's going to be some light incentive to cut loose and that's OK.
  - foobarian 4y ago
    Now the US is way ahead of the game here compared to Europe. There are no property taxes in most of Europe and families hang on to their homes for generations.
    - japanuspus 4y ago
      This appears to differ across Europe. I know for a fact (through living here) that Denmark and probably the rest of Scandinavia has property tax and inheritance tax -- holding on to family property is almost as expensive as buying new property. Which part of Europe are you referring to? I once had Greek colleague who complained about having to maintain three generations worth of houses, so that might be one place where things are as you describe?
      - foobarian 4y ago
        Right, Europe is bound to be diverse on this point. I have exposure to Balkan countries and the UK (which, while they do have non-zero rates, still have them far lower what I'm used to in New England).