Rental Viewing Etiquette

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Da Boss**

Grey Templar wrote:
Da Boss wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:

Da Boss wrote:
Ha! thanks for explaining my own history to me.

I am willing to bet I know a lot more about the Irish Potato Famine and the underlying economic system that allowed it to happen than you do.

If you truly did know all about it, then you'd know that the biggest factor was the Corn Laws combined with the dangers of monoculture farming. The problem with then further excarberated by the economic situation at the time encouraging land owners to use their land for more profitable cash crops(like beef). Add in that England botched the famine relief efforts though a combination of bad information and a wee bit of racism and you get a problem that was far greater than the sum of its parts.

I'm far from an expert. Clearly, you aren't one either though. the Potato famine is a warning against the dangers of monoculture farming, isolationist policies, the need for resilient domestic food production, and against general political ineptitude. Drawing the conclusion that the tenant-landlord relationship is inherently evil is selective memory.

Mate, I know a lot more about it than you do. I teach monoculture farming and use the Irish potato famine as my example. Why was there a monoculture? Because of the economic system of tenant farming propagated by the Anglo-Irish Landlord class. The whole thing goes back to Cromwell and the catholic irish being dispossessed of their land and forced to rent from the Protestant landowners he created. The gigantic underclass of tenant farmers were farming potatoes because that was the only way to feed their families on the tiny plots of land allocated to them, and they could not buy any other food because all their money went on rent, trapping them in a cycle of poverty.

Add on to that the fact that lots of landlords saw the Famine as a way to clear out tennants and consolidate their farms, often selectively targeting Irish language speakers in a sort of half hearted ethnic cleansing, buying them passage on over crowded coffin ships to America or Liverpool where hundreds of thousands died in squalor while they repurposed the land into more profitable uses. You are correct about the Corn Laws, but that was more about famine relief than the situation that CAUSED the famine in the first place, which was the economic system of tennant farming taken to an extreme in Ireland because of sectarian hatred that it was not in other countries in Europe.

The famine was complex, but downplaying the role of landlordism in the whole thing is ignorant and wrong. And seriously, the Famine is the defining historical event in Irish history. we study it in school, we have to read books about it, we learn about it from practically every aspect of our culture. I would never dream of lecturing an American on the Civil War or the War of Independence, it is the height of hubris. That you cannot recognise that is a bit worrying tbh.

But again, none of those problems show that being a landlord is inherently evil. They really just show people being evil and abusing their power. You're confusing the method in which a problem was manifested for the actual problem. The problem wasn't that landlords and tenants existed, it was that certain landlords used their position to abuse their tenants because of religious and racial bigotry. On top of economic and agricultural problems.

If a guy uses a baseball bat to beat up someone because he doesn't like the color of their skin, their religion, or just because he looked at him funny, its not the baseball bat who is the blame and the proper response isn't to ban people from having baseball bats.

I mean, I can't recall where I said it was evil in this thread. That is a word I reserve for more serious things than this. I consider it somewhat immoral, and would like to see it discouraged as a way to make large amounts of money.

But the problem with the potato famine and with modern landlordism is the power differential. Landlordism provides a way for the rich to exert power over the poor by buying up all the assets and then using them to exploit the poor out of the value of their labour. It entrenches inequality, allowing the already rich to get richer at the expense of those who cannot afford to buy a house. They syphon off the value created by those people doing useful work and amass it, usually using it to buy more properties and increase the number of people they can economically parasitise. But it ultimately comes back to power.

I am in favour of distributing power more evenly around the world. I think that produces better behaviour and prevents abuses as were seen in the Potato Famine (btw, it was not "some landlords", the system was pervasive. Otherwise the famine would not have been so severe.)
Having this power gives landlords the ability to abuse it. Whether all of them do or just some of them is pretty irrelevant, they should not be encouraged to have that power in the first place.

There is a place for temporary rental housing. Some may even prefer to live in such housing long term. But the real reason people tend to live in rental accommodation is because they are trapped, and cannot get out. House prices are way, way higher than they used to be, and that drives up rents. Anything that encourages the sale of houses will help to drop the price and make it affordable for normal people instead of the rich.

**Grey Templar**

Given that all attempts at "redistributing power" around the world end up distributing the power into the hands of tyrants and not into the common people, I wish people would learn from those mistakes and stop trying.

There is always going to be a power differential of some kind. The one we have right now is the most equitable we can hope for and still have a functional modern society. It causes the least harm to the fewest people.

**nfe**

Argive wrote:

nfe wrote:
Argive wrote:
nfe wrote:

Council housing here is ok. Only problem is that there's a horrendous lack of it after decades of selling it off and deliberately failing to replace it.

I don't think there's a lack of it.(this might vary on geography).

No doubt it varies by area - but in June last year there were a million families waiting on council houses in England, with two thirds of them having already waited more than a year, and council house overcrowding hit a record high in January.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jun/09/more-than-1m-families-waiting-for-social-housing-in-england
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jan/31/overcrowding-social-housing-england

How many of those are people who are already living accommodation(private or corporate landlords) paid for by govt. due to housing benefits and also waiting on housing, and how many are people who can and do afford to pay rent(otherwise they would be homeless?) but want cheaper housing to better their quality of life so they can go on holidays and etc but not do the extra work and effort?? And how many people genuinely need housing??

Ok lets spit ball here, a million households... If we assume there's on average 3 people at each household that indicates a total population of 4.5% of the UK where people are on the waiting lists.

The unemployment rate of 3.8%. So we can assume 3.8 of the 4.5 are already being recipients of housing benefits in private or corporate landlord accommodations right? Broadly speaking. So that leaves say 1% of people who are waiting on social housing.

25% of the population is renting privately by the end of the year 2021(https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/jun/12/one-in-four-households-in-britain-will-rent-privately-by-end-of-2021-says-report). I would think if the rental prices are that unaffordable the waiting list would be close to 20%. Some people are happy to rent and don't want to buy and would rather get smashed, go on holiday and party I guess....

When you have government that is throwing money at hovels for people to live in are you surprised market prices go up??

Leaving aside the 'most of them are just workshy scumbags that want to smoke fags and get pissed' tone:

Council housing is MUCH cheaper than paying housing benefit to private landlords, so that many of these people are being supported by housing benefit is an argument that we need more council housing, not against.

In most parts of the UK, you can't simply get on the waiting list because you fancy a cheaper home. In addition to being a UK or Irish citizen, councils are free to apply a whole range of criteria. The most common exclusion criteria are income above a given level, savings over a given amount, if you have no demonstrable connection to the local area, if you've ever been in rent arrears, or if you have any history of antisocial behaviour.

Most of the 'hovels' having money thrown at them are private lets that the state has to keep in business with housing benefit precisely because it doesnmt have the housing stock to accommodate people.

**queen_annes_revenge**

Grey Templar wrote:
queen_annes_revenge wrote:
So what happens when my tenants move out, and I have a period of months where its unnocupied, who owns it? Because if you're suggesting the government picks up the tab of the mortgage, council tax, bills and maintenance then I'm right with you.. That would be awesome.

No. They're suggesting that the government fine you outrageous sums for the crime of having your tenants leave and being unable to find someone to fill the vacancy. On top of you having to pay all the other taxes and bills you'd still have.

Even more outrageous than the council tax I already pay? wow

Automatically Appended Next Post:

nfe wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:

I don't care.
Your situation is created out of your own volition.
By your own problem identification you Fall under the same category as the problem generated by companies with significant market power.

That is my issue with your argument.

And to the last part:
There is no "Ablasshandel " for sins, and yes i am catholic thank you. You are just as guilty by your own percived problem as these multibillion companies using market position of oligopols to their own advantage.

There's a saying, rocks and Glass Houses, something.

You're not following. I'm not saying that when we own two properties that are not always occupied that we will not be contributing to a problem. I'm saying that people, including me, should be forced to help contribute to solutions to that problem.

My position is renting at profit is seriously damaging, and people with unoccupied properties should pay substantial council tax, and that by preventing the first, and enforcing the second, you significantly reduce both rent and house prices, alleviating the strain on poorer people.

Absolutely nothing I've said is inconsistent.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey Templar wrote:
queen_annes_revenge wrote:
So what happens when my tenants move out, and I have a period of months where its unnocupied, who owns it? Because if you're suggesting the government picks up the tab of the mortgage, council tax, bills and maintenance then I'm right with you.. That would be awesome.

No. They're suggesting that the government fine you outrageous sums for the crime of having your tenants leave and being unable to find someone to fill the vacancy. On top of you having to pay all the other taxes and bills you'd still have.

Not outrageous (by my definition), and not a fine, but I'd set unoccupied council tax at maybe three times occupied council tax. Enough that it's a significant driver to find occupants and reduce rents if need be, but not instantly crippling.

It would soon become crippling for me after a couple of months. I have a large savings so I'd be ok for a while, but what you're suggesting would put my council tax bill at about £500 a month.

**nfe**

queen_annes_revenge wrote:
nfe wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:
queen_annes_revenge wrote:
So what happens when my tenants move out, and I have a period of months where its unnocupied, who owns it? Because if you're suggesting the government picks up the tab of the mortgage, council tax, bills and maintenance then I'm right with you.. That would be awesome.

No. They're suggesting that the government fine you outrageous sums for the crime of having your tenants leave and being unable to find someone to fill the vacancy. On top of you having to pay all the other taxes and bills you'd still have.

Not outrageous (by my definition), and not a fine, but I'd set unoccupied council tax at maybe three times occupied council tax. Enough that it's a significant driver to find occupants and reduce rents if need be, but not instantly crippling.

It would soon become crippling for me after a couple of months. I have a large savings so I'd be ok for a while, but what you're suggesting would put my council tax bill at about £500 a month.

Mine too. It would certainly encourage me not to own a second dwelling that was ever unoccupied if I didn't need to. Which is the point.

**queen_annes_revenge**

yes but the point is I dont want my property to be unnoccupied.

having to pay the mortgage, council tax and bills is more than enough. your solution is to punish me twice.. purely because some rich russians own empty properties. that's not really a very good premise..surely you can see that.

**nfe**

queen_annes_revenge wrote:
yes but the point is I dont want my property to be unnoccupied.

having to pay the mortgage, council tax and bills is more than enough. your solution is to punish me twice.. purely because some rich russians own empty properties. that's not really a very good premise..surely you can see that.

My solution is to force property prices down and encourage excess housing into the hands of the state to redress the decades of dwindling housing stock and skyrocketing prices that resulted from right-to-buy and barring councils using the proceeds to replace stock. It's not a reaction to corporations and billionaires buying entire blocks at a time. They're a late-stage symptom, not a cause.

**queen_annes_revenge**

It sounds like you want to punish hardworking property owners for things that aren't their fault.

fining me for unoccupied property isnt gong to get tenants in faster, all its going to do is make me poorer, and put more money in the hands of the government. ergo, its not really any solution to the problem your talking about is it? If anything its more likely going to make me put up rent prices to cover potential or previous losses.

**nfe**

queen_annes_revenge wrote:
It sounds like you want to punish hardworking property owners for things that aren't their fault.

fining me for unoccupied property isnt gong to get tenants in faster, all its going to do is make me poorer, and put more money in the hands of the government. ergo, its not really any solution to the problem your talking about is it? If anything its more likely going to make me put up rent prices to cover potential or previous losses.

I don't want to punish them, I just couldn't care less about their businesses.

More money in the hands of the government is good. More property in the hands of the government is good. You can try and put up rents if you like, but hundreds of thousands of landlords would be put in the same position at the same time, flooding the market with properties and slashing market prices for both rent and property, so you're going to struggle more to find tenants with increased rents.

I think we're done here. Literally everything you're citing as negative results are the things I specifically hope would happen - I want life to be difficult for landlords. I want it to be hard to find tenants and expensive to have empty dwellings. This is the entire premise. Pointing out that this isn't what you want or that you don't think it's fair isn't really debating anything

**Overread**

Nfe the thing is the kind of person who owns a huge block of housing and keeps them empty is likely able to afford any kind of "punishment tax" you impose upon them for being empty unless you make the tax so insanely high that its never going to be approved.

So chances are you won't give down the rental prices all that much nor the number of potential rental or purchasable homes because that large block won't budge much. Instead you'll likely just hit all the small people who own two homes and rent one and who seriously don't want their rental home empty at all. They don't need punishing if its empty because if its empty they are already lowering the rental price.

The only way your scheme could work is if it were scaled, so a minimum duration of time empty (several months) coupled to a number of total properties owned which are empty. Ergo a very low if no fee if you've 1 empty property of 1 second property. But a much higher fee if you own 10 empty properties etc...

That said another aspect is second homes. They are not empty rentals they are simply a second homes and might be empty half the year or more at times. They certainly eat up local housing (esp in the countryside) to a significant degree. Of course some contribute to the economy because they are used as holiday homes. So a heavy tax on them could affect tourism in regions that rely heavily on a big tourist population.

**queen_annes_revenge**

My property isn't a business, its an insurance policy for when I need to buy my own property, or put money aside to look after my daughter as she grows up.

The fact that you keep grouping all landlords together, combined with thinking the government having more of people's money and business is a good thing; tells me you probably lean towards a certain misguided ideology, so yeah we're done. I'll just keep happily renting out my property until your lot seize the means of production.

**nfe**

Overread wrote:

The only way your scheme could work is if it were scaled, so a minimum duration of time empty (several months) coupled to a number of total properties owned which are empty. Ergo a very low if no fee if you've 1 empty property of 1 second property. But a much higher fee if you own 10 empty properties etc...

I'm all for scaling in addition - but that kinda stuff is easy for the extremely wealthy to dodge via setting up a pile of businesses to own a few at a time.

I don't except that the block-owners with hundreds or even thousands of empty properties can absorb the cost. Currently they can do so because those properties cost pennies to own - they aren't paying mortgages or council tax and their energy bills are virtually zero. They'll have factors fees but most of the time they'll own the factors. Suddenly you're paying several hundred pounds a month for every single one of them, probably halving the income of a rented flat on a 1-1 basis.

Things get worse for them fast when the market rents drop - which they would. Those people own a lot of properties for sure, so yeah they could still keep a lot of stock out of use to try and hold up their rented properties, but 45% of landlords have a single rented property (21% of the total rented dwellings in the UK) and 38% have 2-4 and many, hopefully most, of those folks would find themselves selling them on in fairly short order, so you're still flooding the market, even if Roman Abramovich's pals still want to hold on to empty bocks.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

queen_annes_revenge wrote:

The fact that you keep grouping all landlords together, combined with thinking the government having more of people's money and business is a good thing; tells me you probably lean towards a certain misguided ideology

Probably not the one you think.

Have a braw day!

**A Town Called Malus**

queen_annes_revenge wrote:
My property isn't a business, its an insurance policy for when I need to buy my own property, or put money aside to look after my daughter as she grows up.

You already own a property.

**queen_annes_revenge**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
queen_annes_revenge wrote:
My property isn't a business, its an insurance policy for when I need to buy my own property, or put money aside to look after my daughter as she grows up.

You already own a property.

a property I want to live in. my situation doesnt currently call for me to be living in a property owned by myself.. so having one that I can rent out makes financial sense.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

nfe wrote:

queen_annes_revenge wrote:

The fact that you keep grouping all landlords together, combined with thinking the government having more of people's money and business is a good thing; tells me you probably lean towards a certain misguided ideology

Probably not the one you think.

Have a braw day!

It doesnt matter, the government seizing things from the populace is bad whichever side you fall on.

**Ouze**

This is an interesting thread to me because I really can't decide which side of the fence to fall on. Both sides have really good arguments, and really problematic ones.

My mom lived in this apartment in Yonkers, NY when I was growing up. The rent prices in NY were, and are, outrageous - it was $1500 a month for a third floor walkup, and this was in 1995 or so, so I guess around $2500 a month adjusted for inflation or thereabouts. She lived in this place from 1998 to around 2014 or so. I'm not messing with the inflation calculator for every one of those almost 20 years, but she must have paid $500,000 in rent over that timeframe.

In 2014, the landlord decided to retire and move to Florida, and he sold the place. The new landlord decided he wanted my mom's apartment for his daughter, so when her lease was up, she had to be out in 30 days. At $500K, she probably paid for the house the triplex was housed in and quite a bit past that, but had nothing to show for it in the end.

This soured me quite a bit on long-term apartment living.

**Slipspace**

Ouze wrote:
This is an interesting thread to me because I really can't decide which side of the fence to fall on. Both sides have really good arguments, and really problematic ones.

My mom lived in this apartment in Yonkers, NY when I was growing up. The rent prices in NY were, and are, outrageous - it was $1500 a month for a third floor walkup, and this was in 1995 or so, so I guess around $2500 a month adjusted for inflation or thereabouts. She lived in this place from 1998 to around 2014 or so. I'm not messing with the inflation calculator for every one of those almost 20 years, but she must have paid $500,000 in rent over that timeframe.

In 2014, the landlord decided to retire and move to Florida, and he sold the place. The new landlord decided he wanted my mom's apartment for his daughter, so when her lease was up, she had to be out in 30 days. At $500K, she probably paid for the house the triplex was housed in and quite a bit past that, but had nothing to show for it in the end.

This soured me quite a bit on long-term apartment living.

I think there are bad landlords and bad tenants but the vast majority fall squarely in the middle. I don't think landlords are inherently evil as some posters here are suggesting but it's also true not all tenants are scumbags trying to screw the landlord out of all their money while they live like kings for free.

In the case of your mother, it seems to me like that's just the downside of renting over owning. Not saying it doesn't suck, but there's always the possibility the landlord just decides to turf you out after the minimum notice period, regardless of how long you've lived somewhere. It was the main driver for me to buy my own place - I didn't want someone else to be able to come along and kick me out of my home. Not sure what you can do about that in the real world. Ideally it'd be great if people could be assured of renting the same place as long as they want, provided they're responsible tenants, but economic realities and the basic fact you're living in someone else's property makes that difficult to achieve.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Ouze wrote:
This is an interesting thread to me because I really can't decide which side of the fence to fall on. Both sides have really good arguments, and really problematic ones.

My mom lived in this apartment in Yonkers, NY when I was growing up. The rent prices in NY were, and are, outrageous - it was $1500 a month for a third floor walkup, and this was in 1995 or so, so I guess around $2500 a month adjusted for inflation or thereabouts. She lived in this place from 1998 to around 2014 or so. I'm not messing with the inflation calculator for every one of those almost 20 years, but she must have paid $500,000 in rent over that timeframe.

In 2014, the landlord decided to retire and move to Florida, and he sold the place. The new landlord decided he wanted my mom's apartment for his daughter, so when her lease was up, she had to be out in 30 days. At $500K, she probably paid for the house the triplex was housed in and quite a bit past that, but had nothing to show for it in the end.

This soured me quite a bit on long-term apartment living.

This. . . I've made a couple comments here or there ITT, but still see a much larger picture, based on my local area, personal experiences, and my business education. In the situation you describe, there isn't anything illegal that went on, but I think many of us would say that it falls on the unethical side of the grey spectrum (IMO, it would be different if LL needed it for themselves, not for housing a dear family member).

An army buddy of mine shared a video post of some rich a-hole who got a bunch of money via real estate rentals telling millennials to NOT buy a house ever, that buying a house "ties you down" and will halt your career, while if you simply rent (with nothing to show for it, as you point out), and you get a promotion or a new job across the country its as "easy" as moving. . . Now, for most of us, this idea ought to seem ridiculous, because frankly it is. Most of the people who would be watching this particular rich a-hole live in large to medium-large metro areas of the US. The size and scope of these metro areas typically means that there is no shortage of "promotion"/work opportunities. . . Then there are the greater social issues that affect us all: you live in a city/town or wherever. You develop friendships/relationships with people, you game at one shop, know your favorite checkout person at the grocery store. In short, you extend yourself and have a social web (all of us do to some extent), and here's this guy saying that none of that matters one bit, you'll just rip all that out and move on like its nothing. . . . Puuuuullleeeeeese

**Argive**

Look. Renting is never a good idea unless you are in a situation that warrants it.

Young people tend to have no effin clue what they want to do and they might end up 2000 miles away in 12 months after breaking up with their BF/GF. So renting is for them.

Once you have a stable life/job and relation ship and have settled down. Buying seems like a no brainer. Buying more to leave more for your children seems like a no brainer too. How is someone trying to leave wealth for their children so they have to struggle less bad? You would have to stop the entire concept of inheritance and enforce it to level the playing field...Good luck with that

**Not Online!!!**

Argive wrote:
Look. Renting is never a good idea unless you are in a situation that warrants it.

Young people tend to have no effin clue what they want to do and they might end up 2000 miles away in 12 months after breaking up with their BF/GF. So renting is for them.

Once you have a stable life/job and relation ship and have settled down. Buying seems like a no brainer. Buying more to leave more for your children seems like a no brainer too. How is someone trying to leave wealth for their children so they have to struggle less bad? You would have to stop the entire concept of inheritance and enforce it to level the playing field...Good luck with that

First, not everyone cares about their offspring, second buying needs to be possible in the first place where you are.

**nfe**

Argive wrote:
Look. Renting is never a good idea unless you are in a situation that warrants it.

Young people tend to have no effin clue what they want to do and they might end up 2000 miles away in 12 months after breaking up with their BF/GF. So renting is for them.

Once you have a stable life/job and relation ship and have settled down. Buying seems like a no brainer. Buying more to leave more for your children seems like a no brainer too. How is someone trying to leave wealth for their children so they have to struggle less bad? You would have to stop the entire concept of inheritance and enforce it to level the playing field...Good luck with that

A) I don't think anyone has said there should be no renting. I'm all for it when people want it - I just want them to be doing it at low cost. Buying because you've settled down isn't a no brainer for some people, but they should also be getting quality housing at low cost. We already have enough dwellings for everyone, it is outrageous that they're so expensive and it is easily fixed.
B) I'd also like to see vastly increased inheritance taxes on private property, too, but that's a different argument.

**Not Online!!!**

So you inherit an ancient mingvase a house, and some other stuff, and Instantly are forced to sell going against tradition and sentimental values.

Good idea.
And family buisnesses instantly are state owned, ya know those that generally locally create Jobs.

**nfe**

Not Online!!! wrote:
So you inherit an ancient mingvase a house, and some other stuff, and Instantly are forced to sell going against tradition and sentimental values.

Good idea.

I agree.

Joking aside: I said private property, not personal property, so not the vase (though it should already be in a museum). I also said increased taxation, not seizure.

Furthermore, tradition is no argument against anything.

**filbert**

Inheritance tax applies to a deceased person's estate in its entirety, not just any property left.

It's entirely possible that someone can die without leaving any property (by which I mean houses) at all yet still qualify for inheritance tax due to leaving an extremely valuable piece of jewellery, for example.

I personally think inheritance tax is a pernicious and evil thing. You work hard your whole life, paying tax on the things you buy, the property you own and sell and then when you die, the government takes yet another cut of your pie as you attempt to pass it on to family. Having dealt with two estates recently, I can tell you it adds an awful amount of stress and worry when dealing with what is already a traumatic situation.

Edit: Also, I should mention inheritance tax can put tremendous financial burdens on people. For example, you are left a property in a will by your parents. The property is worth £400k, for argument's sake. So you pass the inheritance tax threshold. The tax must be paid as part of applying for probate. But what happens if the house was all you were left? You need to sell the house to pay the tax. You can't sell the house until probate is granted. Therefore, the inheritance tax has to come out of your pocket and you have to try and recoup that by selling the house once probate is granted. There are numerous examples of people being put under terrible financial and emotional strain through no fault of their own but purely through being named in a will.

**nfe**

Firstly, I know it applies to an entire estate. That's why I specified that I'd increase it on private property - this is a particular problem in the UK as more than half of our wealth is in land and real estate, far higher than the rest of Europe and, I think, most of the globe. It's a major force in maintaining inequality and, again, in giving poorer people a very hard time of it in terms of access to affordable housing (he says, trying to drag it back towards the topic).
Secondly, obviously there are problems with how inheritance tax is applied - I'm not sure what I've said that implies I think any of these systems are effective or efficient! Advocating a massive overhaul doesn't mean keeping everything bar rates the same!

Like stuff I've advocated earlier, I'd be hit quite hard by this personally. I think I should be.

Note: I think it's worth remembering, for those vehemently opposed to the state having more control over property, at least in the UK, that almost all privately owned property was initially confiscated from the population and given over to the wealthy in the 18th century when Adam Smith and his peers were trying to find a way of getting more people into industrial rather than subsistence work.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Then there's shenanigans such as this....

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/aug/11/duke-westminster-hugh-grosvenor-inheritance-tax-reform

£9,900,000,000 inheritance. Dodged most of the tax. Because shonky laws.

**queen_annes_revenge**

filbert wrote:
Inheritance tax applies to a deceased person's estate in its entirety, not just any property left.

It's entirely possible that someone can die without leaving any property (by which I mean houses) at all yet still qualify for inheritance tax due to leaving an extremely valuable piece of jewellery, for example.

I personally think inheritance tax is a pernicious and evil thing. You work hard your whole life, paying tax on the things you buy, the property you own and sell and then when you die, the government takes yet another cut of your pie as you attempt to pass it on to family. Having dealt with two estates recently, I can tell you it adds an awful amount of stress and worry when dealing with what is already a traumatic situation.

Edit: Also, I should mention inheritance tax can put tremendous financial burdens on people. For example, you are left a property in a will by your parents. The property is worth £400k, for argument's sake. So you pass the inheritance tax threshold. The tax must be paid as part of applying for probate. But what happens if the house was all you were left? You need to sell the house to pay the tax. You can't sell the house until probate is granted. Therefore, the inheritance tax has to come out of your pocket and you have to try and recoup that by selling the house once probate is granted. There are numerous examples of people being put under terrible financial and emotional strain through no fault of their own but purely through being named in a will.

Case in point. Screw the government and their taxes. I don't understand why anyone would want more taxes on anything.

**Ensis Ferrae**

filbert wrote:
Inheritance tax applies to a deceased person's estate in its entirety, not just any property left.

It's entirely possible that someone can die without leaving any property (by which I mean houses) at all yet still qualify for inheritance tax due to leaving an extremely valuable piece of jewellery, for example.

I personally think inheritance tax is a pernicious and evil thing. You work hard your whole life, paying tax on the things you buy, the property you own and sell and then when you die, the government takes yet another cut of your pie as you attempt to pass it on to family. Having dealt with two estates recently, I can tell you it adds an awful amount of stress and worry when dealing with what is already a traumatic situation.

Edit: Also, I should mention inheritance tax can put tremendous financial burdens on people. For example, you are left a property in a will by your parents. The property is worth £400k, for argument's sake. So you pass the inheritance tax threshold. The tax must be paid as part of applying for probate. But what happens if the house was all you were left? You need to sell the house to pay the tax. You can't sell the house until probate is granted. Therefore, the inheritance tax has to come out of your pocket and you have to try and recoup that by selling the house once probate is granted. There are numerous examples of people being put under terrible financial and emotional strain through no fault of their own but purely through being named in a will.

IMHO, inheritance tax is a GOOD thing in certain situations. Personally, I'm of the belief that there does need to be a threshold of value such that the "financial burdens" that the family face is tolerable. . . Hence why it boggles my mind that people in the US are so vehemently against an estate tax that doesn't even kick in until the value reaches multiple millions of dollars and therefore will never affect them.

**Grey Templar**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
filbert wrote:
Inheritance tax applies to a deceased person's estate in its entirety, not just any property left.

It's entirely possible that someone can die without leaving any property (by which I mean houses) at all yet still qualify for inheritance tax due to leaving an extremely valuable piece of jewellery, for example.

I personally think inheritance tax is a pernicious and evil thing. You work hard your whole life, paying tax on the things you buy, the property you own and sell and then when you die, the government takes yet another cut of your pie as you attempt to pass it on to family. Having dealt with two estates recently, I can tell you it adds an awful amount of stress and worry when dealing with what is already a traumatic situation.

Edit: Also, I should mention inheritance tax can put tremendous financial burdens on people. For example, you are left a property in a will by your parents. The property is worth £400k, for argument's sake. So you pass the inheritance tax threshold. The tax must be paid as part of applying for probate. But what happens if the house was all you were left? You need to sell the house to pay the tax. You can't sell the house until probate is granted. Therefore, the inheritance tax has to come out of your pocket and you have to try and recoup that by selling the house once probate is granted. There are numerous examples of people being put under terrible financial and emotional strain through no fault of their own but purely through being named in a will.

IMHO, inheritance tax is a GOOD thing in certain situations. Personally, I'm of the belief that there does need to be a threshold of value such that the "financial burdens" that the family face is tolerable. . . Hence why it boggles my mind that people in the US are so vehemently against an estate tax that doesn't even kick in until the value reaches multiple millions of dollars and therefore will never affect them.

I view estate tax, and a good number of other taxes, as double taxation. They should be illegal. Personally, the only taxes that should exist are income tax and things like license fees on cars

**Ensis Ferrae**

Grey Templar wrote:

I view estate tax, and a good number of other taxes, as double taxation. They should be illegal. Personally, the only taxes that should exist are income tax and things like license fees on cars

The person receiving the estate just got a massive income. Boom, income tax.

**Grey Templar**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:

I view estate tax, and a good number of other taxes, as double taxation. They should be illegal. Personally, the only taxes that should exist are income tax and things like license fees on cars

The person receiving the estate just got a massive income. Boom, income tax.

The person who originally had the estate paid for it with income that was already taxed. Inheritances are gifts, and should not be taxed. Or at the very least, only cash inheritances should be taxed. If you get left the family home, you shouldn't have to go broke paying inheritance tax and property tax just to keep it in the family.

Property tax is doubly bad because its based on the current value of the house. I saw a story recently about an old veteran and his house. He added up all the property tax he had paid over the previous 20 years and it totaled more than what he originally paid for the house. He ended up having to sell his home because he couldn't afford the property taxes anymore as he was on a fixed income. Despite the fact his house was completely paid for decades ago.