My first instinct is “yes” but then I thought about it and I think it’s just going to exacerbate the short-stay problem unless combined with other measures.

  • abhibeckert@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    … so now instead of paying $10k per year, my kids will need to pay $500k when I die? And their only way to avoid it is to move into my place and sell whatever home they currently live in? That sounds pretty crap to me.

    Instead of an asset, the family home has become a liability.

    • Rusty Raven @aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Didn’t the whole proposal start with a hypothetical 80 year old pensioner? You think she’s going to live to 130, and her million dollar house is going to suddenly stop appreciating in value, so her poor put upon 100 year old kids will only inherit $500k?

      Obviously it is far better to scrap any sort of tax on property than burden the poor kids with a reduced inheritance. Far better to make the poor kids (and grandkids, and everyone else’s kids, including those who won’t get an inheritance at all) cough up now with something like the income tax levy that has been proposed.