4 ms·
If I were facing that situation (as I might be 25-30 years from now), I'd surely not rob my children/grandchildren of part of their inheritance by paying capita
by sokoloff 3y ago
If I were facing that situation (as I might be 25-30 years from now), I'd surely not rob my children/grandchildren of part of their inheritance by paying capital gains while I am alive rather than passing it along with stepped-up basis after my and my wife's death.
"Whoa, hold on; we should change the law on that last point!" I hear you saying. And I might even agree, but unless/until we do, grandma is doing the obviously sensible thing by not selling while she's alive.
- Root_Denied 3y agoRight, but that's the point - why is legislation moving forward that doesn't address the problem?
- sokoloff 3y agoIt turns out that there are thousands of problems various legislatures can choose to address. That they're addressing just a subset of the entire problem space with any given piece of legislation is a feature, not a bug. In this case, the federal tax treatment of inherited property (problem 1) cannot be addressed by a California state-level legislature, but the latter can try to increase the supply of housing in CA (problem 2) by making ADU sales legal there.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> why is legislation moving forward that doesn't address the problem? Helping multi-million dollar inheritances built on the housing shortage dodge taxation isn't the political winner it might have sounded like on first glance?