Hacker News Reader

Comment by benj111 | Hacker News Reader

I would like to see a version of that table for 20 years prior. I would expect the old to have greater property wealth than the young, they've had longer to accumulate it. So without a comparator it seems pretty meaningless to me.

And regarding the closing conclusion. I really don't understand why many people are so against inheritance tax. Assuming it needs to be paid at some point, what better time than when you're dead?

View on HN

The graph in the article isn't great, but on the other hand it's well-established fact that the number of 18-34 year olds owning their own homes (or more specifically, having a mortgage instead of renting and counting head of households only) has dramatically fallen in the past couple of decades. We're talking from ~60% of 25-34 year olds in 2001 to 35% of the same age group in 2014...

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/housing/...

Other major life milestones like marriage and procreation are happening later, too. It's data ripe to be stapled into any number of narratives.

I'm German (which has inheritance tax) living in Austria (which doesn't due to the country's biggest publisher wanting to avoid inheritance tax after the unavoidable). Let me tell you, if inheritance tax is a topic for you family you are either stinking rich or bad a planning (i.e. gifts within the family) long term.

Well some people are against inheritance tax because they stand to inherit or they want their children to inherit them. It's basically self interest at work.

Now they are against the tax for even the very rich because they desire fairness or they are afraid of a slippery slope decision.

Or because it was already taxed identically to other assets but for some reason people are mad that it wasn't spent fast enough.

What's the situation re inheritance tax for property wealth v other wealth in your country?

From what I'm aware property is generally treated the same as, or more leniently than other assets. Your comment seems to be saying the opposite? Or am I misinterpreting?

100 shares of BRK-A in 1980 would have been about $30,000 for your parents to buy. They paid tax on the $30k. You inherit those today and they are worth about $30 million. If you make the argument that one should not pay tax on this inheritance, fine. But don't pretend tax was already paid on the $30 million. How about at least a capital gains tax before a tax fee transfer?

That's how Canada does inheritance tax: "deemed disposition". There is no inheritance tax per se, but when you die you're assets are assumed to be sold at current market value and trigger the appropriate taxes.

https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/data/housing/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com