Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I 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.



Adding 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.


You make an extremely compelling point. I was arguing in sound bites and your final paragraph is entirely reasonable.


I 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.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: