No, no exceptions. Once there are exceptions people will abuse them. Even if you inherited your parents property if you already have one you should have to pay extra taxes on it from the day they die until the day you sell it, period. Any person, family, business, or corporation should only own one property, zero exceptions.

Edit: /S. Thought that was obvious

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It can literally take years to sell a property even if you want to sell it. I don't think it's fair to penalize people who are unable to unload an asset and I also don't think it's fair to expect them to just give it away.

[–] InputZero@lemmy.ml 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Added a /s. I should have in the first place. My b.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

No problem. It's often hard to tell because of Poe's Law.

[–] Hobo@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Even if you inherited your parents property if you already have one you should have to pay extra taxes on it from the day they die until the day you sell it, period.

This seems needlessly callous to me. At least give them a 6-12 month period to clean up, do repairs, and sell the house. Not everyone that inherits a house is making enough to pay increased taxes right out the gate like you're proposing. Also, from personal experience, cleaning houses of deceased relatives tend to require a bit of work to get ready for selling and is incredibly emotionally draining. What you're proposing is going to be extremely painful for the people at the bottom, and emotionally wracking, since as soon as a loved one dies you're now under the gun to sell.

I agree though, second homes should be extremely heavily taxed. I just think we need to approach it with an even hand and make sure that we are targeting big corporate rental agencies and the very wealthy, and not some family that just lost their parents/grandparents. Something about targeting those people seems needlessly aggressive and not really the intention being discussed...

[–] thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yeah that's not far off from some folks' actual unironic opinions so the /s is unfortunately not obvious, lol. The Poe's Law situation isn't even hypothetical in this one.

[–] InputZero@lemmy.ml 1 points 10 months ago

Yeah, I realized that I should have known better.

[–] wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 months ago

Regarding the edit, I've seen people unironically post this take on lemmy.