[groby_b]

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.

[mupuff1234]

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.

[l33t2328]

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

[groby_b]

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.