so if they can't afford to pay tax on the windfall, they'd have to sell the house and buy a smaller one. is that the end of the world?
> Regarding the cost basis rest that is so people can upgrade their house without having to pay a tax bill
what they have in many european countries is that you can do this only on your primary residence. so you let people upgrade their homes, but not their rental properties
The point is reduce land entitlement a little bit. Yes, there's going to be some light incentive to cut loose and that's OK.
If he wasn't I probably did an extremely poor job of financial education while I was alive.
It's gonna be an obligation no matter what
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.
Being able to leave something to your descendants is a critical part of society. If people know they cant leave anything behind they start acting differently (and not in a good way). I understand a key part of communism is you and your family own nothing, but trust me you don't want people to have a use it or lose it attitude towards everything.
No it isn't.
https://www.workers.org/private-property/
>Private property, to a communist, is not your shoes or toothbrush, or even your house.
>Those things are called personal property and under socialism and under communism they continue to belong to workers in much the same manner as they do now.
Criticize people for what they actually believe, not what you imagine they believe.
As I understand, a key part is coming to the realization you and your family have already been robbed (or evicted to go back to your example), and then to ask what's next? At least as I understand Marx, particularly in Capital v. III, the point is to construct a world in which poor & working class regain collective control of resources like food, shelter, health that sustain life. The abolition of transfer of private property is intended to end the cycle of extracted (stolen) life-sustaining resources ending up in the hands of the same family (or dominant group).
As a case in point, the theft of Black farm land has been well documented https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-black-farmers-lost-326-b.... The point of communist organizing in Alabama during the 1930's -- detailed in Robin DG Kelley's "Hammer and Hoe" -- was to protect Black small farm owners from theft of their meager lands, and to take actions so that sharecroppers (tenant farm workers) could collectively control enough land to sustain themselves.
