5 ms·
That’s what every parent hopes to leave their kids with: an obligation
by l33t2328 4y ago
That’s what every parent hopes to leave their kids with: an obligation
- NoSorryCannot 4y agoOooor 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 agoNow 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 agoThis 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 agoRight, 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).
- timidiceball 4y agoNorway has no inheritance tax at all; property taxes are microscopic (relative to other places that levy property taxes with intended market effects).
- stainforth 4y agoI think you can argue migration (forced) through history is tied to this. The US was a recent star in growth due to free land. But there is no more free land. And Mars does not fill that role. We need to disempower rentiers.
- squeaky-clean 4y agoWouldn't this just reduce land entitlement for those who aren't wealthy enough to afford the new taxes? I think something like taxes that apply for people who own more than 1 property would be better.
- 8note 4y agoAka, a house? It's gonna be an obligation no matter what
- phil21 4y agoI'm pretty sure my kid would be quite happy if I left him a million dollar asset that he just had to figure out how to pay capital gains taxes on. If he wasn't I probably did an extremely poor job of financial education while I was alive.
- groby_b 4y agoI mean, we can solve that problem by a 100% inheritance tax so they don't leave an obligation. No? Then maybe let's skip arguing in sound bites. Personally, I think the answer here is a continued and ongoing land tax. Occupying land should come with an expectation you contribute to the common good, because you don't "own" land. It's a shared good, just like air and water, and you should pay for use. Primary residences should indeed not be subject to an inheritance tax - if they are continued to be used as a primary residence. Providing an ongoing home for a family unit[1] is a societal good, we shouldn't punish it. [1] Definition of family is a hairy problem for another, longer post.
- l33t2328 4y agoYou make an extremely compelling point. I was arguing in sound bites and your final paragraph is entirely reasonable.
- groby_b 4y agoI know reasoning skills are hard, but here, let me help you: OP posted a snarky comment. I proposed a policy. Feel free to bring arguments debating the policy. Or, you know, keep posting oneliners.
- mupuff1234 4y agoAdding tax loopholes is almost always bad imo, and usually taken advantage by those with means. What you'll end up with is people "relocating" for a year to avoid paying inheritance tax.
- vkou 4y agoI'll happily take a million dollars from you, if that 'obligation' comes a 250K tax bill.