photo #989218

If this is true, it's far worse than the example noted. This example doesn't even include the issues around debt on the property. So it talks about profit as if the property is paid off. But what if that property has a mortgage at a high loan-to-value ratio? Suddenly you don't have any profit and you owe... because someone died. Wealth tied up in a primary residence very often is used to settle other debts too. So even if there is no mortgage, there are funeral expenses, end-of-life care, moving expenses, costs to cure deferred maintenance, travel, time away from work to tend to the affairs, credit card debt, etc. You could very easily end up in debt because of this policy and someone died and leaving you their home. Inheritances rarely make anyone (monetarily) rich and the death tax is already terrible policy.I have a hard time seeing how this plan can fairly consider the difference between what someone paid 30+ years prior and the value of the house when they die as income to you even when proceeds from a sale are realized.This is yet another attack on both the family unit and financial independence. Such a tax policy will discourage people from building wealth to pass on to others. We'll see more reverse mortgages and more families indebted for end-of-life care. Guess who benefits? Not you and I. Yet another form of communism. Steal from the worker to pad the govt coffers to hire more cronies in lucrative contracts on pet projects.https://www.elderlawanswers.com/biden-administration-may-spell-changes-to-estate-tax-and-stepped-up-basis-rule-18125