Inheritance Drama: You Got Any? Stories Wanted.

[Chris Pascale]

@Chris Pascale  Oh, you look really good in that suit.  Such a sharp young man, such cute kids.    ;P

Ha, thanks!

[Siebrie]

My sister fell out with my parents and went no-contact for a few years. Recently, low contact has been re-established. Sister is verbally and physically much stronger than me, and parents fear she would outshout/outpush/outlegalbattle me in the division of their inheritance. The inheritance won't be very much, but sister just likes to win and get paid 'what she's owed after her horrible childhood'. So, they made me sole executor. I have accepted, and informed them that I will hire external help to settle the 'estate'. We are talking around €300,000 gross including the house, leaving about €175,000 net to be divided between both of us. A large part will be eaten up by Dutch inheritance taxes.

[russianswinga]

We are talking around €300,000 gross including the house, leaving about €175,000 net to be divided between both of us. A large part will be eaten up by Dutch inheritance taxes.

I did not realize inheritance taxes in the Netherlands kicked in at that low of an amount (USA is closer to $5 million I think?)
Would it not make more sense for them to liquidate the estate earlier? For example, sell the house, gift both sisters money, then rent?
If I were facing a choice of owning a house until my last day and risking my children losing 1/2 of its value to taxes, as opposed to gifting them while I am still living, I would dispose of the house.

[TVRodriguez]

We are talking around €300,000 gross including the house, leaving about €175,000 net to be divided between both of us. A large part will be eaten up by Dutch inheritance taxes.

I did not realize inheritance taxes in the Netherlands kicked in at that low of an amount (USA is closer to $5 million I think?)
Would it not make more sense for them to liquidate the estate earlier? For example, sell the house, gift both sisters money, then rent?
If I were facing a choice of owning a house until my last day and risking my children losing 1/2 of its value to taxes, as opposed to gifting them while I am still living, I would dispose of the house.

US federal estate taxes apply to amounts over the exemption amount, which is currently about $11.5 million per person (set to decrease by half in 2026), and is indexed for inflation. That includes lifetime giving, bc the estate and gift tax is a unified tax on transfers. You also get an extra $15,000 per person annually  (the annual exemption amount) that's not counted towards the $11 million.

As an aside, an inheritance tax is imposed on beneficiaries and depends on who is receiving the bequest, and the federal government does not have an inheritance tax.  The federal estate tax comes out of the estate and depends on the size of the estate and the decedent's lifetime and testamentary gifts and bequests.

[talltexan]

Suppose you are forty years old, and your parents are sixty-eight. Your 68-year old parents can afford to give you $15,000 tax free annually. They can expect to live about another twenty years (based on demographic tables), so that's $300,000 on average that can be given without counting against their estate tax limit.

That seems very small compared to $11.2 million.

[UncleX]

We are talking around €300,000 gross including the house, leaving about €175,000 net to be divided between both of us. A large part will be eaten up by Dutch inheritance taxes.

I did not realize inheritance taxes in the Netherlands kicked in at that low of an amount (USA is closer to $5 million I think?)
Would it not make more sense for them to liquidate the estate earlier? For example, sell the house, gift both sisters money, then rent?
If I were facing a choice of owning a house until my last day and risking my children losing 1/2 of its value to taxes, as opposed to gifting them while I am still living, I would dispose of the house.

I'm not a tax professional, but I'm Dutch and interested. In the Netherlands (in 2019) a child pays nothing over the first €20,616, 10% over the next €124,727 and 20% over the rest. I assume the parents do not own their house debt free, leaving €175,000 euro to be devided after it is sold. Both children inherit €87,500 and have to pay €7,431 each (assuming standard circumstances).

https://www.belastingdienst.nl/wps/wcm/connect/nl/erfbelasting/

Receiving a gift from parent while they're still alive is also taxed and is not necessarily more beneficial.

https://www.belastingdienst.nl/wps/wcm/connect/nl/schenken/content/hulpmiddel-schenkbelasting

[TomTX]

Suppose you are forty years old, and your parents are sixty-eight. Your 68-year old parents can afford to give you $15,000 tax free annually. They can expect to live about another twenty years (based on demographic tables), so that's $300,000 on average that can be given without counting against their estate tax limit.

That seems very small compared to $11.2 million.

Nope. The parents can EACH give $15k per year per person. That's $30k per year.

If you happen to be married, the parents can each give each spouse $15k per year, totaling $60k per year.

If you have a married sibling, the parents can distribute $120k per year tax-free.

If there are the usual 4 grandchildren, they can distribute $240k per year tax free.

Across 20 years, that's $4.8M.

Remember that long before that 20 years is up the $11.5M estate exemption is cut in half to $5.2M.

That makes the per-year transfers nearly as much as the estate exemption. If you account for the expected increases in the per-year cap, it will be higher than the estate exemption.

[Imma]

We are talking around €300,000 gross including the house, leaving about €175,000 net to be divided between both of us. A large part will be eaten up by Dutch inheritance taxes.

I did not realize inheritance taxes in the Netherlands kicked in at that low of an amount (USA is closer to $5 million I think?)
Would it not make more sense for them to liquidate the estate earlier? For example, sell the house, gift both sisters money, then rent?
If I were facing a choice of owning a house until my last day and risking my children losing 1/2 of its value to taxes, as opposed to gifting them while I am still living, I would dispose of the house.

In NL the exemptions are about €650.000 for a spouse and €20.000 for a child or grandchild, €50000 if you inherit from your child and €2000 for anyone else.

Then (as a child) you pay the low rate of inheritance tax over the first 125.000 (10%) and 20% over the remaining money.

So, €300000/2=€150.000 per sibling
20k is tax free
125k is taxed at 10% (€12500 in taxes)
5k is taxed at 20% €1000 in taxes)

Which means both of you would inherit €150k gross and €136500 after taxes.

There are also plenty of options to hand out money to the kids without paying taxes - a once a lifetime gift of €100.000 and a €5000 gift every year.

I honestly don't think those are insane amounts of tax to pay. Only once your inheritance starts exceeding €150.000 you start to pay serious taxes. While everyone wants to receive an inheritance, large inheritances are disruptive to society. To protect our society I think it's justified to limit large inheritances. That's why we invented inheritance tax in the first place and it's the nr 1 most important tax in our history. Thanks to inheritance tax the power of the nobility with their huge inherited wealth was decimated in less than 50 years to the point that nobility has become a quirky tradition rather than a class of people who held undeserved wealth and power.

[UncleX]

While everyone wants to receive an inheritance, large inheritances are disruptive to society. To protect our society I think it's justified to limit large inheritances. That's why we invented inheritance tax in the first place and it's the nr 1 most important tax in our history. Thanks to inheritance tax the power of the nobility with their huge inherited wealth was decimated in less than 50 years to the point that nobility has become a quirky tradition rather than a class of people who held undeserved wealth and power.

I never heard this explanation before, but it actually makes a lot of sense. Very interesting, thanks!

[iris lily]

Well, DH’s family inheritance issue may be heading to court. That was the last volley by Bad Sister.

Me, I am on Team Bad Sister. Stop the madness. Sell the damn thing.

Too bad I have no vote in the matter.

[Imma]

While everyone wants to receive an inheritance, large inheritances are disruptive to society. To protect our society I think it's justified to limit large inheritances. That's why we invented inheritance tax in the first place and it's the nr 1 most important tax in our history. Thanks to inheritance tax the power of the nobility with their huge inherited wealth was decimated in less than 50 years to the point that nobility has become a quirky tradition rather than a class of people who held undeserved wealth and power.

I never heard this explanation before, but it actually makes a lot of sense. Very interesting, thanks!

Thank Napoleon! He also made sure that all children inherited equally and that it's no longer possible to disinherit your children. All a political choice to break the power of the wealthiest in society.

It's hard to put an exact number to what a 'high' inheritance is, an amount that would be disruptive in society. In the US it makes sense that the tax free allowance is much higher because certain aspects of life are so extremely expensive (health care, education). In my part of the world people don't need such high cash buffers.

We've had the option of a tax free cash gift of €100.000 for children between 18 and 40 for a few years now. I think it's no coincidence that we are going through the worst housing bubble in our country's history at the same time. I'll be 30 this year and was lucky to be able to buy through a low-income project when I was 24. I was always a saver so we had some savings for closing costs. We earn twice as much now but we probably wouldn't be able to afford our current home if we bought now.

In my group of friends there's a very visible gap between those who were able to buy, with an extremely low interest rate and usually a cash gift from the parents, and thus are able to save/invest/start a family and those who are paying half their household income in rent and can't find a way to improve their situation. Nearly every home owner in our social circle has received the €100k gift, some two, from both sets of parents. The parents get the cash from their own inheritances or by downsizing. I don't begrudge anyone their inheritance or gift and I understand why families make those choices, but I strongly suspect the 100k gift has played a large part in fuelling the current housing boom and I feel very sorry for those of my friends on the losing end. I think this wealth gap is starting to become very disruptive.

[iris lily]

While everyone wants to receive an inheritance, large inheritances are disruptive to society. To protect our society I think it's justified to limit large inheritances. That's why we invented inheritance tax in the first place and it's the nr 1 most important tax in our history. Thanks to inheritance tax the power of the nobility with their huge inherited wealth was decimated in less than 50 years to the point that nobility has become a quirky tradition rather than a class of people who held undeserved wealth and power.

I never heard this explanation before, but it actually makes a lot of sense. Very interesting, thanks!

I have heard the  statistic that large pots of inherited wealth dissipate after just a few generations, but I don't believe inheritance tax is the sole controller of that.

Other factors are

1) inheritors spread the wealth over many people, reducing assets per capita
2) inheritors are not as motivated to coddle the assets as were the originators of the wealth—they just wanna spend and enhance their lifestyle
 3) inheritors are not skilled at preserving and growing the assets as were the originators
4) inflation over generations

We have, in my family, an instance of multi generational wealth that started withgrandparents, blue collar people, who worked, invested, and had company stock that did well. Their only child  is cheap as hell and has every dime they ever left him. His child,an only,child, is due to inherit millions. I doubt she has any idea how much is there.

She is a good kid  but I will bet those assets die with her. The preservation of the assets is causing her dad anxiety. But you  know, that is worry of his own making. He should not expect to exert control from the grave.

I look at the huge death tax on the aristocracy in England  and am sad about the toll it takes on great old ancient houses. So many end up in the National Trust because  families cannot afford to keep them. After you’ve sold off acres of farm land and the paintings and fine furniture to pay taxes, there isnt much else you can do to stave off jettisoning the house.

So yeah, death taxes at a high rate is a philosophy consistent with our populist government and generally I am ok with it, but there are downsides to everything and taxation is not the panacea to solve all things.

[DadJokes]

It's easy to say that inheritance money should be taxed. After all, we always tax money every time it changes hands. So why should an inheritance be any different? However...

How does that work with business ownership that is inherited? To pay the tax, would the inheritor have to sell partial ownership of the company or potentially liquidate it entirely? There's probably a simple answer that isn't coming to mind.

Sorry, not trying to make this political. I'm just curious how to approach that counter-argument.

[former player]

There is a very obvious problem with inheritance today and that is the hundred millions/billionaire class.  In many ways they are effectively beyond the control of governments, their wealth is so large it will keep growing  - it is too big to be subject to the old "clogs to clogs in three generations" saying - and even if it has been honestly come by it will soon be in the hands of people who haven't earned it and whose use of it will have few or no limits.

[shelivesthedream]

In the UK we have the seven year rule, where inheritance tax basically reaches back and taxes you progressively on substantial gifts you made in the seven years before you die. So if you have terminal cancer you can't just give everything to your children on the day of your diagnosis, die six months later, and have everything remain untaxed.

I don't have a problem with inheritance tax per se, but I am slightly troubled by the way vast differences in property values in the UK affect inheritance tax. I know a lot of people have the "family home" and would like to pass it on. A house in Northumberland could be completely exempt from inheritance tax, whereas the same house in London could be taxed so heavily the heirs would have no choice but to sell it. But that's really a general beef with the UK property market, I suppose, not inheritance tax specifically.

[K-ice]

I look at the huge death tax on the aristocracy in England  and am sad about the toll it takes on great old ancient houses. So many end up in the National Trust because  families cannot afford to keep them. After you’ve sold off acres of farm land and the paintings and fine furniture to pay taxes, there isnt much else you can do to stave off jettisoning the house.

I too feel kind of bad for these families. We visited a castle in Ireland and it really wasn't that big. I think it was just lost to the family in the past 50-70 years or so. Kind of sad really...

We have no castle but neither of my parents or inlaws have ever sold their homes bought in the 70's. My SO's parents upgraded but kept their first home as a rental. My parents will likely need to downsize before they pass but I'm not sure. The Grandparents on both sides have lived in the same place as long as I have known.  Two had to be sold when they died. Not my homes, not my choice at all, no real drama but I found it hard. Another grandparent is still living in a little stone house in Europe built by a great grandparent. It's not worth a lot but I hope it's kept in the family.

[talltexan]

While everyone wants to receive an inheritance, large inheritances are disruptive to society. To protect our society I think it's justified to limit large inheritances. That's why we invented inheritance tax in the first place and it's the nr 1 most important tax in our history. Thanks to inheritance tax the power of the nobility with their huge inherited wealth was decimated in less than 50 years to the point that nobility has become a quirky tradition rather than a class of people who held undeserved wealth and power.

I never heard this explanation before, but it actually makes a lot of sense. Very interesting, thanks!

I have heard the  statistic that large pots of inherited wealth dissipate after just a few generations, but I don't believe inheritance tax is the sole controller of that.

Other factors are

1) inheritors spread the wealth over many people, reducing assets per capita
2) inheritors are not as motivated to coddle the assets as were the originators of the wealth—they just wanna spend and enhance their lifestyle
 3) inheritors are not skilled at preserving and growing the assets as were the originators
4) inflation over generations

We have, in my family, an instance of multi generational wealth that started withgrandparents, blue collar people, who worked, invested, and had company stock that did well. Their only child  is cheap as hell and has every dime they ever left him. His child,an only,child, is due to inherit millions. I doubt she has any idea how much is there.

She is a good kid  but I will bet those assets die with her. The preservation of the assets is causing her dad anxiety. But you  know, that is worry of his own making. He should not expect to exert control from the grave.

I look at the huge death tax on the aristocracy in England  and am sad about the toll it takes on great old ancient houses. So many end up in the National Trust because  families cannot afford to keep them. After you’ve sold off acres of farm land and the paintings and fine furniture to pay taxes, there isnt much else you can do to stave off jettisoning the house.

So yeah, death taxes at a high rate is a philosophy consistent with our populist government and generally I am ok with it, but there are downsides to everything and taxation is not the panacea to solve all things.

are you referring to the "populist government" that doubled the estate tax exemption in 2017? That "populist government"?

[TVRodriguez]

While everyone wants to receive an inheritance, large inheritances are disruptive to society. To protect our society I think it's justified to limit large inheritances. That's why we invented inheritance tax in the first place and it's the nr 1 most important tax in our history. Thanks to inheritance tax the power of the nobility with their huge inherited wealth was decimated in less than 50 years to the point that nobility has become a quirky tradition rather than a class of people who held undeserved wealth and power.

I never heard this explanation before, but it actually makes a lot of sense. Very interesting, thanks!

I have heard the  statistic that large pots of inherited wealth dissipate after just a few generations, but I don't believe inheritance tax is the sole controller of that....

So yeah, death taxes at a high rate is a philosophy consistent with our populist government and generally I am ok with it, but there are downsides to everything and taxation is not the panacea to solve all things.

are you referring to the "populist government" that doubled the estate tax exemption in 2017? That "populist government"?

Ha! Seriously.

"Shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations" is a common expression in the wealth advisory world.

US federal estate taxes have existed in some form since the earliest days of our country's history. It came and went, often enacted in wartime to pay for the war. The current tax began in 1916.

One reason for the US estate tax is to capture the otherwise untaxed gain on securities, which receive a step up in basis at death.

[alienbogey]

Ironic that the death tax was started to help pay for a war.

[Cb1234567]

I dread my mom’s passing. Mainly because I absolutely adore her, but secondarily because she and my (now-deceased) father made me and my two siblings co-executors and, to make matters worse, co-owners on a transfer on death deed for their house. And one of my sisters has resided in said house for > 30 years, and will be very tough to dislodge, despite being completely incapable of caring for said house. She hasn’t even done her own laundry in > 30 years. (Can you imagine having your 83-year-old mother doing your laundry?) Reading these stories doesn’t make me feel better.

It may be tough for you to decide to do it, but I'm pretty sure that legally it's quite straightforward.

https://www.lawyers.com/ask-a-lawyer/trusts-estates/can-a-family-owned-property-be-sold-without-one-members-consent-1641374.html

I bought a house like this last fall, one of several heirs went to the court and the court forced a sale.

Never underestimate the ability, motivation and singular focus of a recalcitrant co-owner to Snafu a sale, even if court-ordered. We narrowly avoided the scenario of my mom’s will giving joint ownership of her home to my sister and I. I had to pull in the Big Guns (call my aunt and uncle) to escape.

I posted a nightmare story on this forum a while ago, from when my dad died. It was cathartic :). After my sister went nutso when I was doing his estate, my mom updated her will (to give sister an annuity and to house to be sold...neither here nor there..Mom was trying to keep sister from being homeless in her old age without doing a trust.).

[*flashback*] To refresh your memories, sister was a do-nothing, no job, in her 30s, college educated, no purpose. She half-lived in dad’s house, and copious amounts of her crap resided in dad’s already full basement. Dad died unexpectedly at 70 y.o. Incidentally, he recently had cancelled his life insurance policy - not sure if that jinxed him. (He would likely find this comment hysterical, just FYI.)

Ok, sorry. Focusing: Sister proceeds to take over the house, leaving her detritus of life everywhere (envision hot pink and black bras draped over the washing machine and on a kitchen chair, dirty undies and pjs left in the hallway in front of her bedroom, her groceries and snacks and papers and books strewn across all flat surfaces in the kitchen...), all whilst my DH and I are there for dad’s final arrangements and for me to set up the estate. DH describes it as “marking her territory”. Fortunately, dad left the choice of selling the house up to his executor (unfortunately me, though I’d rather do it than have my sister do it). At least in this case, I was able to change the locks and get her out. Eventually.

After loads of work and drama, the house went on the market with a wonderful pit bull of an agent...to be under contract within just a few weeks. This was when I learned that realtors call, shall we say, lower tier home inspectors when they want a deal to go through. That gentleman must’ve been confused; he certainly failed to look up at the patched pipes in the basement, which I know from reading his inspection report.

Ok, so we’re days from closing. I’ve signed off in advance, and DH and I were packing to drive the 12 hrs or so for “the final pack out” over a weekend. Then I receive a kindly letter from sister’s attorney, ranting and just shy of ordering me to delay the closing. Um, no? I still remember the attorney’s name, including how she spells it. And yes, in case you’re wondering, sister tried to bill her attorney fees to the estate. (hahahahaha, no.) Luckily, I’d already spoken to an attorney, so I called him. He read the letter and he advised to ignore it (all gratis, because some people are saints). Also luckily, my sister is not very sophisticated or strategic or cunning, else she could’ve sabotaged the sale in other ways - damaging the house, going to the courts, showing up to harass the buyer... She’d already dragged her feet removing her belongings, things of dad’s that she wanted, and a motorcycle. It was ridiculous. [end flashback]

Fast forward to now. Several years after the nightmare of dad’s estate, my mom goes back to update her will. She wanted to get rid of the annuity and do something else for my sister. Sister has stayed at mom’s house for many months at a time, no job until recently and not consistent work (DH feels she is running out of money). Mom says priceless comments such as, “oh, she’s so helpful” “[she] loaded the car for me, and I didn’t have to do a thing” “[she] picked this or that up at the store for me” and my favorite, “ Oh,everyone here just looooooves [sister]” —> this last referring to all of my mom’s friends and neighbors. I will spare you my responses, both the one I actually said and the many others kicking around in my head for the next several weeks. Lol

Mom is at the attorney. Her plan *going in* was to update her will to give sister the house and me an equivalence in money (mom has plenty), the rest split 50/50, with a few specific bequests (as before). No annuity, no trust fund. Sister obviously likes living there and has been adopted by mom’s friends and neighbors (right?!?). Then sister could sift through mom’s things at her leisure, and sell later if she wanted. Selfishly, this saves her executor (me) from having to clean and sell the house. Her plan *going out* was to will the house to both sister and I, and her other assets to be split 50/50 (that part isn’t important). What IS important is that she was planning to force me to put my name on something with sister. We’ve never gotten along. Dad’s estate was a horror solely because of her. Mom’s friends may love the new persona, but all the old family friends neighbors I know flat out say she’s crazy, among other things. One sweet old lady (family friend) uses the word hoochie mama -to my DH, not me. Does a leopard change its spots?

Mom tells me of this brilliant update late in the evening after seeing her attorney, and tells me they’re drawing it up for her to sign. I feel my blood pressure spike and my hands start shaking. I breathe slowly through my nose and ask a few questions. The attorney-who must’ve taken stupid pills that day - told my mom it’s not that hard to force a sale in her state (TN) - it’s just a piece of paper, and the courts generally approve it without a big fuss. He was concerned (or she became concerned) that there might not be enough money, or that the will order of property disposition was the house and then money later or goodness knows what. I don’t feel those concerns are justified, but let’s just say they are legit. So, the solution is to give the house to TWO people, one of whom demonstrably went categorically apeshit last time this happened.

Fantastic.  I proceed to freak out, because apparently mom forgot that I nearly called the police on my sister during dad’s estate, not to mention how nearly impossible it was to get her planted butt out of that house. And now she’s going to have her executor put both names on the DEED?! Okay? What could go wrong? In TN, two people co-owning a house means each gets full use of the house. Sister could create a trailer park on the property, bring in illegal immigrants (mom’s pet peeve) - or worse - democrats (gasp !!), or simply take over the whole place with her own living, full the garage with junk (probably from dad’s), not pay the property taxes/insurance and not upkeep anything while still living there, wander around in her underwear when a realtor tries to show the house, or it might not even be here but some good boyfriend she comes up with...all I could think was [!!!!!!!].

I called my aunt and uncle That Night, this cannot happen is my thinking and mom was in lala land. All I can think is the attorney overwhelmed my mom, and she lost her way. My aunt and uncle (who knows what they thought) saved the day and somehow steered mom away from this horrendously misguided advise from the attorney.  It was in their own best interests: my aunt is the backup executor. Now the will is back to requiring the house be sold - sister will have a month to decide if she wants it. I feel that is reasonably safe - sister won’t likely be able to decide anything that fast.

So. The moral of this story is: do not leave real property to multiple people, unless you hate them and want to punish them.

[mtn]

I dread my mom’s passing. Mainly because I absolutely adore her, but secondarily because she and my (now-deceased) father made me and my two siblings co-executors and, to make matters worse, co-owners on a transfer on death deed for their house. And one of my sisters has resided in said house for > 30 years, and will be very tough to dislodge, despite being completely incapable of caring for said house. She hasn’t even done her own laundry in > 30 years. (Can you imagine having your 83-year-old mother doing your laundry?) Reading these stories doesn’t make me feel better.

It may be tough for you to decide to do it, but I'm pretty sure that legally it's quite straightforward.

https://www.lawyers.com/ask-a-lawyer/trusts-estates/can-a-family-owned-property-be-sold-without-one-members-consent-1641374.html

I bought a house like this last fall, one of several heirs went to the court and the court forced a sale.

So. The moral of this story is: do not leave real property to multiple people, unless you hate them and want to punish them.

Oh how I hope that that is not my in-laws plans. My FIL mentioned that it was, and I quickly told him about my parents experiences with my grandparents, and not to do that just leave cash if you leave anything. Hopefully he remembered that conversation.

FWIW, my parents experiences were not contested and all siblings did and still do get together wonderfully - but the estate that left real property took about 10 years to settle (other issues on top of the real estate, but that was one of the things drawing it out).

[AMandM]

So. The moral of this story is: do not leave real property to multiple people, unless you hate them and want to punish them.

Hurray! My father just sold his house!

His entire estate is to be divided equally among us. I actually believe that my sisters and I would have been able to sell the house and split the proceeds completely amicably, but what a PITA, especially since each of lives in a jurisdiction with a different legal system.

[iris lily]

While everyone wants to receive an inheritance, large inheritances are disruptive to society. To protect our society I think it's justified to limit large inheritances. That's why we invented inheritance tax in the first place and it's the nr 1 most important tax in our history. Thanks to inheritance tax the power of the nobility with their huge inherited wealth was decimated in less than 50 years to the point that nobility has become a quirky tradition rather than a class of people who held undeserved wealth and power.

I never heard this explanation before, but it actually makes a lot of sense. Very interesting, thanks!

I have heard the  statistic that large pots of inherited wealth dissipate after just a few generations, but I don't believe inheritance tax is the sole controller of that.

Other factors are

1) inheritors spread the wealth over many people, reducing assets per capita
2) inheritors are not as motivated to coddle the assets as were the originators of the wealth—they just wanna spend and enhance their lifestyle
 3) inheritors are not skilled at preserving and growing the assets as were the originators
4) inflation over generations

We have, in my family, an instance of multi generational wealth that started withgrandparents, blue collar people, who worked, invested, and had company stock that did well. Their only child  is cheap as hell and has every dime they ever left him. His child,an only,child, is due to inherit millions. I doubt she has any idea how much is there.

She is a good kid  but I will bet those assets die with her. The preservation of the assets is causing her dad anxiety. But you  know, that is worry of his own making. He should not expect to exert control from the grave.

I look at the huge death tax on the aristocracy in England  and am sad about the toll it takes on great old ancient houses. So many end up in the National Trust because  families cannot afford to keep them. After you’ve sold off acres of farm land and the paintings and fine furniture to pay taxes, there isnt much else you can do to stave off jettisoning the house.

So yeah, death taxes at a high rate is a philosophy consistent with our populist government and generally I am ok with it, but there are downsides to everything and taxation is not the panacea to solve all things.

are you referring to the "populist government" that doubled the estate tax exemption in 2017? That "populist government"?

I think former player’s post, #1992 just a couple above yours, hits all the points of Bernie and Co.’s populist message, you know, the evil “hundreds millions/ billionaires” and maligning wealth that may not have been “honestly come by” and then dissing inheritors who ” didn’t earn it”.

I couldnt have written a better paragraph myself of I trying to express that overall sentiment.

[Villanelle]

My parents are leaving their house to both my sister and me.  Well, I don't think it is specified beyond "everything is split 50.50", but the end result seems the same.

I can only hope she continues to be the reasonable, sane person I think she is, and that neither of us are greedy to the point of nickel and dime-ing one another, when the time eventually comes. 

My own estate is also just set up in terms of money or % shares, which I guess also leave the house somewhat ambiguous.  I would hope that means the executor can sell on the terms she see fit, for the amount she deems appropriate.  But I probably need to ask that of the lawyer.  So thanks for the conversation. 

[Imma]

It's easy to say that inheritance money should be taxed. After all, we always tax money every time it changes hands. So why should an inheritance be any different? However...

How does that work with business ownership that is inherited? To pay the tax, would the inheritor have to sell partial ownership of the company or potentially liquidate it entirely? There's probably a simple answer that isn't coming to mind.

Sorry, not trying to make this political. I'm just curious how to approach that counter-argument.

In my country - and I expect in most countries - there is a tax exemption in case you inherit a business and the heir plans to actually take over the business.

@iris lily In my country we never used to have as many grand country houses and estates as there used to be in the UK. Most of those were broken up in the 19th century and I don't believe this is a bad thing. It wasn't like in Downton Abbey. My ancestors used to rent a bit of land from a landowner until they were able to buy. As each village usually had one or two landowners, and everyone knew eachother, the people lived in virtual slavery - if you were kicked off your property for some reason (for example, becoming Protestant/Catholic while the landowner was Catholic/Protestant) you were basically forced to leave the area all your family lived in. When the landowners were starting to sell off, people like my ancestors were able to buy a small property and live the way they wanted to.

There are some tax exemptions to keep forests and other important areas of nature together. From a historical perspective, it's of course important to save the country homes themselves. As far as I know this is generally happening where I live - since the buildings are all monuments they can't be demolished and upkeep is subsidized. I know it's hard work to keep up a house like that, but I don't think people who own a country home should have to pay less taxes because they are burdened with that home. There are plenty of ways for those homes to provide an income (from opening it up to visitors to organizing historical events to turning it into a hotel or a wedding venue). I agree with @shelivesthedream that inheritance tax is making it more difficult for 'regular' people to inherit small homes that have become worth a fortune in recent years. I don't really know how to prevent that - it's happening in my country too. But as I said, tax-free gifting from parents to children is imho making this problem worse. The average home in my country now costs 8x the average income. Tax-free gifting of large sums of money certainly plays a part in this. Homes are scarce but the prices can only go up so much. At some point no one can afford homes anymore and prices will fall. Tax-free giving distorts this process of supply and demand.

[Paul der Krake]

European misfit here. I have a couple old friends and friends of friends who own family castles and manors and similar Large-Ass Historical Buildings (LAHBs for short).

There's really two main problems behind owning such a thing.

#1: It's wildly unprofitable. Assume a single family owns this for now, they're upper middle class, so they don't live in Bumfuck Burgundy, or Bumfuck Yorkshire. They live in Paris or London, where many more fucks are available for consumption. If you're "lucky" there may be enough demand from visitors to have tours that can raise some money. We're not talking 30 EUR per visitor hourly tour of Versailles here, more like 5 EUR per adult kids go free, every other Tuesday and Saturday. It will not come anywhere near covering the trips to and from the LAHB. You also need to maintain relationships with local craftsmen who will incessantly come to help fix whatever is broken this month. Then you'll get a frantic call from your tour guide because some kid ran headfirst into the iron cauldron during a tour and you have to deal with that (at least it's not America so you won't get sued, but it still needs to be dealt with).

#2: Heirs. There is this thing called "indivision". It's arcane and complicated but basically means everyone who owns the thing needs to agree on everything, or nothing gets done. The LAHB may have been the home of this cultured and great ancestor of yours, but guess what, 4 generations later it's now 50 heirs, out of which you're bound to find a bunch of morons without a pot to piss in. And they have a claim to the LAHB just as much as you. They will make it impossible to do anything, either because they don't want to, can't afford to, or just don't like you because 4 generations with countless family branches in the picture you're hardly related at all and there's always resentment lurking below the surface.

tl;dr big ass buildings great to visit, terrible to own. This is why many look like shit.

[Imma]

I don't know a lot about how to run one of those LAHB"s (my family worked downstairs ) but it doesn't make sense to own the building that way - and all be legally liable in case something happens too. It would make way more sense to put the home in a trust or to turn it into a corporation where the owners become shareholders, like a large family business. But of course all owners would have to be on board with that. I don't know about other countries but I'm pretty sure that letting a monument fall into disrepair is illegal in here and would have serious financial consequences.

I do know one person who's family is the heir to a large corporation, started by their great grandfather. The family owns the majority of the shares, the shares are in a trust and the board of the trust makes the decision. The purpose of the trust is to keep the company intact and to provide the heirs with an income. Most heirs don't care much about the company and just collect their free money and that one weird uncle who always fights with everyone can't block important decisions.

[jinga nation]

So. The moral of this story is: do not leave real property to multiple people, unless you hate them and want to punish them.

Hurray! My father just sold his house!

His entire estate is to be divided equally among us. I actually believe that my sisters and I would have been able to sell the house and split the proceeds completely amicably, but what a PITA, especially since each of lives in a jurisdiction with a different legal system.

Smart man.

My dad is clearing his house (a 4 bed, 2 bath is too much for him), after my mum and grandma passed in the last 2 years. He will eventually sell his house and move in with either my sibling or me (we're all local). Sibling and I have told him that neither we nor our kids need his money; we'd rather he use it for travel and his retirement. Any monies left over when he passes will go to his only sister, a spinster overseas. If she passes before him, monies will go to several charities.

[zolotiyeruki]

The average home in my country now costs 8x the average income. Tax-free gifting of large sums of money certainly plays a part in this. Homes are scarce but the prices can only go up so much. At some point no one can afford homes anymore and prices will fall. Tax-free giving distorts this process of supply and demand.

Can you elaborate on why there is such a housing shortage?  I don't know off the top of my head what part of Europe you're from, but for that kind of money, I'd expect there to be all sorts of builders and developers building houses to meet the demand.  What's stopping them?

[Imma]

Long story short: the recession happened. We lost about a decade of building while the population grew.

Long version: due to the crash and very long recovery period, including housing market collapse and high unemployment between 2008 and 2013 most projects were cancelled due to lack of funding and new projects weren't developed. This causes major job losses in the trades, so people find different jobs and young people pursue other careers. I'm in NL where we don't have a lot of space so projects have to be carefully planned and that takes a lot of time/money, we can't just build a few suburbs on former farmland. Recent projects in my city include the redevelopment of the harbour and old factory sites (that are heavily polluted and cost €€€ to build on) and all new buildings are high rise. There's even a plan in development where a high rise building on 'legs' will be built over an old monumental low rise building (they didn't get a permit to demolish). So that stuff takes time and €€€.

Of course only short term demand was affected by the economic crisis, long term people are always going to need homes. We're seeing the first boom of completed projects now because after 2013 developers needed about 5 years to go through planning/permits/finance etc. Pricing has gone way up because there are fewer people in the trades now - again, the first generation of post-crisis tradespeople is arriving on the job market but that took some time. New projects are developed everywhere now, but the economy is slowing so I just hope we don't fall into the same trap again.

Because all of this it only pays off to develop expensive homes. Low and mid income housing is disappearing fast. Some cities require developers to include mid-price homes but this just pushes up the price of the other homes.

[Dicey]

In addition to @Imma's excellent explanation, there are additional factors at play. The rise of airbnb takes property out of circulation. Ditto for the board-and-care industry. Sure, they're still providing housing for people who need it, but it ain't cheap.

Next, stricter rent control shrinks available housing in several ways. Nothing new gets built, because it doesn't pencil out. My FIL owned a cute 10-unit apartment building in Berkeley. It was all studios and one-bedrooms, so it was relatively affordable. As the Landlord fees and paperwork became more onerous, he simply stopped renting out units. Once their longest-term tenant died, he sold the building. You know the new landlord jacked up the rental to cover their higher costs. Very recently, a friend's father died, leaving her his pre-prop 13, paid-for house in a desirable part of San Francisco. The rent control laws are so pro-tenant that she is afraid and refuses to rent it out, just as her father did when he moved into a fancy Senior Living complex a couple of years ago. It costs her very little to own, so she merely checks on it regularly and spends the night there when it's convenient, but she has her own house in the suburbs. That's seven bedrooms for one person.

Then there are investors who buy and hold. Lots of them scooped up houses during the crash and are just sitting on them. Most of those properties have doubled or more in value since, so when they do sell, they're not affordable any more either. Thing is, these buyers believe their properties will continue to appreciate at this rate, so not many of them are selling.

Finally: NIMBY-ism plays a role. In my area, developers are building expensive "Stack & Pack" housing near transit, in part because the state is telling them to. People get their knickers in a twist about how greedy the City is and about how much "Things Have Changed". Then they complain that their kids can't afford to live in the town they grew up in, boo-fucking-hoo. Funny, as these buildings come on line*, so far, every one of them is an improvement over what was there before and they fill up fast.

*Lots of projects were approved but not built during the Great Recession, because they couldn't get financing. It was comparatively cheap and certainly easier to just renew their approvals until the economy recovered, so that's what they did. Now they're building and people are screaming that it's too much all at once. If they paid just a bit of attention to local civics (not politics), they wouldn't be so fucking clueless.

[zolotiyeruki]

Very recently, a friend's father died, leaving her his pre-prop 13, paid-for house in a desirable part of San Francisco. The rent control laws are so pro-tenant that she is afraid and refuses to rent it out, just as her father did when he moved into a fancy Senior Living complex a couple of years ago. It costs her very little to own, so she merely checks on it regularly and spends the night there when it's convenient, but she has her own house in the suburbs. That's seven bedrooms for one person.

Wow, that sounds bad.  I've heard the tenant rights laws are pretty lopsided, but bad enough to drive landlords out of the market?  I wonder how many other homeowners/potential landlords are in a similar position.  I have a relative who has built up a portfolio of rental homes in the midwest, and even there, with laws that aren't as bad as San Francisco, they've told me stories of the troubles a bad tenant can cause, even in a case of simple non-payment.  Some renters know the legal system inside and out, and have no qualms about squeezing as much free housing as they can out of landlords.

With property as expensive as it is there, why doesn't your friend simply sell the house?

[dandarc]

Very recently, a friend's father died, leaving her his pre-prop 13, paid-for house in a desirable part of San Francisco. The rent control laws are so pro-tenant that she is afraid and refuses to rent it out, just as her father did when he moved into a fancy Senior Living complex a couple of years ago. It costs her very little to own, so she merely checks on it regularly and spends the night there when it's convenient, but she has her own house in the suburbs. That's seven bedrooms for one person.

Wow, that sounds bad.  I've heard the tenant rights laws are pretty lopsided, but bad enough to drive landlords out of the market?  I wonder how many other homeowners/potential landlords are in a similar position.  I have a relative who has built up a portfolio of rental homes in the midwest, and even there, with laws that aren't as bad as San Francisco, they've told me stories of the troubles a bad tenant can cause, even in a case of simple non-payment.  Some renters know the legal system inside and out, and have no qualms about squeezing as much free housing as they can out of landlords.

With property as expensive as it is there, why doesn't your friend simply sell the house?

And lose out on all those gains that are going to continue to happen?

[Dicey]

Very recently, a friend's father died, leaving her his pre-prop 13, paid-for house in a desirable part of San Francisco. The rent control laws are so pro-tenant that she is afraid and refuses to rent it out, just as her father did when he moved into a fancy Senior Living complex a couple of years ago. It costs her very little to own, so she merely checks on it regularly and spends the night there when it's convenient, but she has her own house in the suburbs. That's seven bedrooms for one person.

Wow, that sounds bad.  I've heard the tenant rights laws are pretty lopsided, but bad enough to drive landlords out of the market?  I wonder how many other homeowners/potential landlords are in a similar position.  I have a relative who has built up a portfolio of rental homes in the midwest, and even there, with laws that aren't as bad as San Francisco, they've told me stories of the troubles a bad tenant can cause, even in a case of simple non-payment.  Some renters know the legal system inside and out, and have no qualms about squeezing as much free housing as they can out of landlords.

With property as expensive as it is there, why doesn't your friend simply sell the house?

And lose out on all those gains that are going to continue to happen?

Lol, the market could drop precipitously and she'd still be fine.

Reasons:
1. She's emotionally attached to both houses.
2. Her mom was a semi-hoarder, the City house still has a lot in it.
3. She works in the City, so it's convenient to swing by there to/from work.
4. She has a life out in the suburbs that she's reluctant to leave.
5. The house in the City could really benefit from an update before selling, but DIY is not in her skill set.
6. She has plenty of moolah, she doesn't need the rental income or the profit from the sale of the house.

Slightly off-topic, but relevant: She is crazy frugal and could FIRE any time, but she wants the pension and healthcare benefits she has worked for.

[Villanelle]

Regarding the conversation about not leaving a house to more than one person, I thought I'd throw this out there. 

My parents' eldrey neighbors sold their house to one of their two children.  That child and her husband plan to live there someday.  For now, the parents still live there and rent the house.  The agreement is that they can stay as long as they want.  I think they also agreed that when the dad passes away (which is almost certain given the health situations) if the child moves in with spouse, they get the master.  IOW, they have really worked out the particulars. 

It's apparently much more advantageous for all parties, financially.  The kid has the tax benefits of a rental, and the parents' rent is far less than their ownership expenses were.  (Thus making the overall expenses less, in total.)

And of course it removes the difficulty of both of their kids inheriting the house and having to agree on terms for getting rid of it or one of them buying it.

Overall, it seems like the best option *IF* all parties can be trusted and if very specific terms are hashed out in advance. 

[mtn]

Regarding the conversation about not leaving a house to more than one person, I thought I'd throw this out there. 

My parents' eldrey neighbors sold their house to one of their two children.  That child and her husband plan to live there someday.  For now, the parents still live there and rent the house.  The agreement is that they can stay as long as they want.  I think they also agreed that when the dad passes away (which is almost certain given the health situations) if the child moves in with spouse, they get the master.  IOW, they have really worked out the particulars. 

It's apparently much more advantageous for all parties, financially.  The kid has the tax benefits of a rental, and the parents' rent is far less than their ownership expenses were.  (Thus making the overall expenses less, in total.)

And of course it removes the difficulty of both of their kids inheriting the house and having to agree on terms for getting rid of it or one of them buying it.

Overall, it seems like the best option *IF* all parties can be trusted and if very specific terms are hashed out in advance.

This also assumes that there is a child who can afford the house, and that said child actually wants the house.

[wellactually]

My grandpa died in 2009. My grandma then lived with various children (5 siblings including my mom who is the only one not local) for the next few months as she didn't want to stay on their large acreage in the home alone. After about a year, one of my aunts finished out her basement with a separate in-law apartment.

Grandma gave Aunt3 a loan to do the remodel. They had it in writing and Aunt3 paid back on schedule. Grandma now pays small rent to Aunt3. Generally a really wonderful setup giving Grandma privacy but also the option for socialization and help quickly. Still, I don't like the bank of Grandma situation.

But the big house remained under my Grandma's ownership. For a couple years, Cousin1 and family "rented" it. Not sure how much rent was paid during that time, but if Grandma wanted to help her out after a long time of poverty and trying to support 5 kids on very little, that's entirely her decision. She's not naive to it. Then Cousin9 and her fiance "rented" it. I expect they paid some and to be fair, keeping up the property has to be done, so someone living there is helpful if they do the work. Both cousins did take care of the home and used that time to save up and buy homes of their own elsewhere. It's a

Aunt4 decided she and her husband wanted to buy the home from Grandma. They had their home on the market and at some point sold and moved into the home. While they were keeping track of rent owed, the actual transfer of ownership kept dragging on. Finally, my mom (Daughter2), finds out that they have executed a sale with my grandma financing the mortgage at a very very low rate. Aunt4 had already borrowed money in writing from Grandma for Cousin9's wedding and that wasn't paid back yet either.

Grandma is not rich. She could be doing much much better things with her money (like making a freaking market return) and may just want it for whatever she feels like doing. Even more so, she expressly wants her estate divided evenly to the 5 kids. So if she were to pass while this arrangement was in place, Aunt4 would be indebted to the estate and have to refinance quickly to pay back the estate before anything cold be settled. Not a great situation.

My mom was able to get them to both see that it was unnecessary and even risky to have this mortgage owner-financed. It was like 3 years ago, so market rates were great but looked like they might go up soon. Thankfully all saw reason and the mortgage was refinanced. Grandma got her money.

These are all nice people. There were only minor issues when Grandpa died, mostly because he was technically stepdad to oldest three kids. No money involved, just some thoughtless comments.

So so so glad that it appears the Bank of Grandma is closed now.

[partgypsy]

Wanted to get people's feedback what people thought of this. My brother is a single Dad (one kid launched, one kid entering college, still living there because going to community college). He  owns a house (has a mortgage) and my mother and my sister moved in with him. My mother is paying for groceries, my sister other then help feed the dog, some chores does nothing to contribute. They are now both nagging my brother to get life insurance, so that if he died at the least they could pay his house off. He doesn't want to do it because according to insurance, the money has to come out of his account. Mom and sis say of course they are going to pay for the insurance, but then it's a pain to make sure they keep up with it.
The other thing I think is weird, if he gets insurance shouldn't the recipients be say his daughter, rather than his non-dependent mother and sister? My sister esp says they will be "up a creek" " no where to live" if something happens to brother, but at the same time I'm thinking, that's not his problem?

[dandarc]

@partygypsy - that reads like a great excuse for your brother to kick mom and sister out of the house. "I no longer feel safe living in the same house as you because it seems like you want me dead . . ."

Is there anything else going on like a disability? Why are they living there?

The recipients can be whoever he wants them to be of course, but without more info, the children are who you'd think of first in this case.

[BabyShark]

Yup, that is absolutely not his problem

[Dancin'Dog]

Wanted to get people's feedback what people thought of this. My brother is a single Dad (one kid launched, one kid entering college, still living there because going to community college). He  owns a house (has a mortgage) and my mother and my sister moved in with him. My mother is paying for groceries, my sister other then help feed the dog, some chores does nothing to contribute. They are now both nagging my brother to get life insurance, so that if he died at the least they could pay his house off. He doesn't want to do it because according to insurance, the money has to come out of his account. Mom and sis say of course they are going to pay for the insurance, but then it's a pain to make sure they keep up with it.
The other thing I think is weird, if he gets insurance shouldn't the recipients be say his daughter, rather than his non-dependent mother and sister? My sister esp says they will be "up a creek" " no where to live" if something happens to brother, but at the same time I'm thinking, that's not his problem?

He should tell his mom that she needs to get life insurance, so they don't starve if she dies.  And the sister needs to get life insurance, so they can hire somebody to feed the dog if she dies.


He should let them cover the insurance bill, and if it doesn't get paid it's their problem.  He should also demand a policy larger than the value of the home, and his children named as beneficiaries of the excess. 

[lhamo]

He needs a written contract with them ASAP delineating what rent they are going to be paying plus whatever else they are responsible for if he is giving them below market rent as a way to help them out.  He should also get his will set up to leave the house to his kids -- in a trust if necessary to keep them one arms length from having to do the dirty work of evicting the others if they want or need to sell the house.  Life insurance, if purchased, should designate his kids and/or the trust as the beneficiary.  They can decide whether or not they want to keep/pay off the house.  He should also make sure any retirement accounts or other assets he has are designated to go to the kids/the trust.

Seriously, these people are NOT going to look out for his kids interests.  It is on him to do that.

[Goldielocks]

Wanted to get people's feedback what people thought of this. My brother is a single Dad (one kid launched, one kid entering college, still living there because going to community college). He  owns a house (has a mortgage) and my mother and my sister moved in with him. My mother is paying for groceries, my sister other then help feed the dog, some chores does nothing to contribute. They are now both nagging my brother to get life insurance, so that if he died at the least they could pay his house off. He doesn't want to do it because according to insurance, the money has to come out of his account. Mom and sis say of course they are going to pay for the insurance, but then it's a pain to make sure they keep up with it.
The other thing I think is weird, if he gets insurance shouldn't the recipients be say his daughter, rather than his non-dependent mother and sister? My sister esp says they will be "up a creek" " no where to live" if something happens to brother, but at the same time I'm thinking, that's not his problem?

If you have a valid and vested interest in someone staying alive, you are able to buy life insurance on them.  They would still need to have any medical questions / checks completed, but the mother could absolutely get her own life insurance, on her son's life, as she is living in his home.  Sister probably could, too.

As the kids are minors, the brother would pay for insurance himself, in his name, on his own life, with them named as beneficiaries.

[Imma]

Does your brother already have a will leaving the house to your mother and sister? If not why do they believe they will inherit at all? Who leaves a house to his mother rather than his children? They are tenants. I assume the kids will inherit the house and decide what to do with it. If he died right now it would be a huge burden on the kids because if they want to sell it because they're young and can't afford it, they're going to make their elderly grandma homeless and they'll be considered the bad guys.

[partgypsy]

Brother has no will, but I'm thinking the default inheritance would be it would go to his kids. I guess mom and sis assume they would continue to live in house because? I don't know no where else to live. I guess the issue is, I don't want my mom or sister to move in with me, so I guess figuring out some kind of back up plan is not terrible? My brother however has told me that he plans after his youngest starts regular college or finishes college (next 2-4 years), he is going to downsize by selling house and renting. Which means they will need alternate housing sooner than later. He's told this to them too. Unless his plan has changed since last time he talked about it (last summer).

[marion10]

Your mother and your sister do no have to live with you if they are not in your brother's house. They can find their own housing/

[Sugaree]

Your mother and your sister do no have to live with you if they are not in your brother's house. They can find their own housing/

This. 

My uncle is currently in the process of trying to sponsor his girlfriend/fiance and her two kids' visas to move here from central America.  My mother is somehow concerned that if he dies that she will become responsible for this woman and her kids.  I'm like that's not how that works. 

[mm1970]

In addition to @Imma's excellent explanation, there are additional factors at play. The rise of airbnb takes property out of circulation. Ditto for the board-and-care industry. Sure, they're still providing housing for people who need it, but it ain't cheap.

Next, stricter rent control shrinks available housing in several ways. Nothing new gets built, because it doesn't pencil out. My FIL owned a cute 10-unit apartment building in Berkeley. It was all studios and one-bedrooms, so it was relatively affordable. As the Landlord fees and paperwork became more onerous, he simply stopped renting out units. Once their longest-term tenant died, he sold the building. You know the new landlord jacked up the rental to cover their higher costs. Very recently, a friend's father died, leaving her his pre-prop 13, paid-for house in a desirable part of San Francisco. The rent control laws are so pro-tenant that she is afraid and refuses to rent it out, just as her father did when he moved into a fancy Senior Living complex a couple of years ago. It costs her very little to own, so she merely checks on it regularly and spends the night there when it's convenient, but she has her own house in the suburbs. That's seven bedrooms for one person.

Then there are investors who buy and hold. Lots of them scooped up houses during the crash and are just sitting on them. Most of those properties have doubled or more in value since, so when they do sell, they're not affordable any more either. Thing is, these buyers believe their properties will continue to appreciate at this rate, so not many of them are selling.

Finally: NIMBY-ism plays a role. In my area, developers are building expensive "Stack & Pack" housing near transit, in part because the state is telling them to. People get their knickers in a twist about how greedy the City is and about how much "Things Have Changed". Then they complain that their kids can't afford to live in the town they grew up in, boo-fucking-hoo. Funny, as these buildings come on line*, so far, every one of them is an improvement over what was there before and they fill up fast.

*Lots of projects were approved but not built during the Great Recession, because they couldn't get financing. It was comparatively cheap and certainly easier to just renew their approvals until the economy recovered, so that's what they did. Now they're building and people are screaming that it's too much all at once. If they paid just a bit of attention to local civics (not politics), they wouldn't be so fucking clueless.

Excellent explanation and analysis.  Bravo!

[SwordGuy]

Your mother and your sister do no have to live with you if they are not in your brother's house. They can find their own housing/

This. 

My uncle is currently in the process of trying to sponsor his girlfriend/fiance and her two kids' visas to move here from central America.  My mother is somehow concerned that if he dies that she will become responsible for this woman and her kids.  I'm like that's not how that works.

That depends on the country they are moving to and the process used to get their approval to immigrate.

I've read stories that some Canadians **are** on the hook for providing for some immigrants they sponsor.

[scottish]

Your mother and your sister do no have to live with you if they are not in your brother's house. They can find their own housing/

This. 

My uncle is currently in the process of trying to sponsor his girlfriend/fiance and her two kids' visas to move here from central America.  My mother is somehow concerned that if he dies that she will become responsible for this woman and her kids.  I'm like that's not how that works.

That depends on the country they are moving to and the process used to get their approval to immigrate.

I've read stories that some Canadians **are** on the hook for providing for some immigrants they sponsor.

As they/we should be...

When you sponsor a relative to become a permanent resident of Canada, you must:

meet set income guidelines
agree in writing to give financial support to your relative and any other eligible relatives coming with them:
beginning on the date they become a permanent resident
for up to 20 years (depending on their age and how you’re related)
The person you sponsor must sign an agreement saying they will make the effort to support themselves. This includes sponsored dependent children 18 or older. Dependent children under 19 don’t have to sign this agreement.