Defensive offer, or have house prices become so expensive?

You call something martial "bum-bum" or "explosion" where most others would have roared with happiness. See this possible tax as an investment in your future and that of your descendants, which will open many doors for them that remain closed to others who have not worked any less.

My intention was merely to point out the hidden tax increase on city houses. Presumably, quite a few homeowners are affected here. In my opinion, the inheritance situation is idealized as a gift or lottery win, and even a large portion of the inheritors will probably accept the enormous increase without complaint, since they initially have money in their pocket through the sale. In reality, however, it is not an insignificant reduction of the total wealth of a family.

You still do not name a solution with clear numbers and values for this tax because such a universally happiness-inducing solution simply does not exist.

The numbers must be such again that a normal single-family house is not affected by it. You can take a look here in the financing thread. In the city, a house now costs about 800K, which cost 300K 16 years ago. You certainly cannot expect me to determine an exact average value here.

One could also say that members of the [Hausbauforum] basically have a double allowance. ;)

If there is no copyright on it, I will take this for my next discussion with the tax office: The actual value of my income has not changed for me. Only the numerical value has increased. This will be awesome :cool:

I wonder if it is good or bad that some people do not grasp the problem at all. Because what you say is actually true and worse, many now have less, since their numerical value has not increased – mind you, regarding income.

A normal single-family house is not affected. You can move in there anytime, and then it is owner-occupied and tax-free. Since you are loudly calling for "expulsion from the homeland," you should also take decisive action. Either the house is your home and not the new building in Hintertupfingen. Then it is no problem to move in there. Or the new building is your home, then the parental house is just a house you are attached to.

Of course, one can always discuss whether to adjust the tax exemptions by 50k or 100k, but honestly, that is not the biggest problem with inheritance tax. A much bigger problem I see is that, for example, unmarried couples are massively disadvantaged compared to married couples. This is not only the case with inheritance tax but also in many other situations.

A normal single-family house is not affected.

Yes, how do you come to that conclusion?

You can move in there at any time and then it is owner-occupied and tax-free.

Owner-occupation has nothing to do with the aforementioned discussion / problem.

My intention was merely to point out the hidden tax increase for townhouses

There's nothing "hidden" about it, "bum-bum" etc., these are taxes that affect everyone. Don't you think that everyone can report similar things from their life that they find inappropriate, even though the law says so?

In my opinion, the inheritance situation is romanticized as a gift or lottery win, and even a large portion of the heirs will probably accept the enormous increase without complaint, since in the end they have money in their pocket from selling first. But in fact, it is a not insignificant reduction of the total wealth of a family.

Of course it is a gain and no one is disputing that. You just don’t want to pay your legally determined share and are dramatizing the situation with “loss of homeland,” quasi expropriation, and the like.
However, you don’t mention above that this will be a lot of money that potential sellers then have in their pocket. Are they also only going to take the value from 1990? Apparently, you benefit significantly in some way from the reunification, which is fine, but now it is not enough. You brush it off as if the value were insignificant... that’s nonsense, sorry. As I said, in my case the value nearly halved... who would I have sued?

since in the end they have money in their pocket from selling first. But in fact, it is a not insignificant reduction of the total wealth of a family.

However, this increase in wealth was by no means earned; it arose solely through luck, chance, location, and other circumstances that you did not influence. To be honest, this description sounds more like landed gentry... “total wealth of a family.” I have written before: even kings could not keep their castles in family possession forever, you can even do it—where is the suffering?

The figures have to be such again that a normal single-family house is not affected by it.

So that you personally are not affected. For many homeowners, the current values are more than sufficient. If your 1.7 million were covered, you would not care about the law or would probably find it okay. You would like YOUR law, that would be enough. Then at least write it: it should be so that MY house goes for zero, those in Starnberg or Munich can gladly pay taxes. Why them and not you? You deliberately refuse to name a figure that you would consider fair!!!