When parents buy a property, in most cases they also think about passing it on to their children later. On the conventional family scale, it's not about the industrialist's villa with a huge plot of land, but about a single-family house with maybe 150 square meters. On such a scale, the descendants should be able to inherit without having to sell out of necessity.
It is therefore appropriate to occasionally adjust the allowances using a price index - for real estate. This could even help the parents to take better care of the house during their lifetime and keep it energetically up to date. However, real estate has an enormous tax advantage compared to other types of assets. The fact that sales profits can be made tax-free in this country after a holding period of ten years is probably unique. This speculation period can go. This would even secure counter-financing.
The author has already inherited "Grandma's little house" and achieved less sales revenue than expected. And paid no inheritance tax.
The argument about inheritance taxes is a debate about envy, I'm told. Yes, of course - what else? Of course I'm jealous when full-time heirs drive the apartment prices in my trendy district to new heights. So under the flag of equal opportunities, we do not need even higher allowances. The inheritance doesn't have to be sold right away: the heirs should take out a loan on grandma's Sylt thatched roof house to pay off the inheritance tax - and possibly even go to work for it.
Should they hand over a few percent of the family business to a Wall Street investor in order to supply the tax office with the proceeds? A little more professionalism and striving for profit would do many a sleepy family business good - especially under the aegis of the generation of heirs. The money of the heirs belongs in the state budget. How else is the Minister of Finance supposed to pay my gas price cap and the subsidy for the next electric car?
The author has never inherited. Should it ever come to that, he hopes for a tax loophole.