90
Boomers wanting to downsize face huge tax bills
(www.cnn.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2024
90 points (78.5% liked)
News
23296 readers
1260 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
If it was just a problem of paying more taxes then the argument would be bullshit. The main problem is buried at the end of the article:
This is the real reason they are not moving. They would be stepping backwards financially instead of stepping forward.
Feels like the crux of this whole thing is that housing shouldn't be an investment.
Good luck changing that. Housing has been a promised vehicle for wealth growth to multiple generations.
How could it be changed so it wouldn't be?
Land is mostly a set resource with new developments and cities slowing. Home development follows land and while there's been a boom, overall it's been slowing. As there are more people, demand for housing increases.
All of this drives cost of homes up. So the longer you are in a home, the more it and/or the land it worth. Usually outpacing inflation. So when you sell, it's worth more. It's an investment by default even for those people who own 1 normal-sized single family home. It was an investment even when housing prices were reasonable decades ago.
I watched a video a while back that talks about how in Tokyo housing is seen as more of a consumer good than an investment, and explains why:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6ATBK3A_BY
Interesting. So there's 2 main reasons and 1 knock-on effect on why Tokyo (not Japan, just Tokyo) has affordable housing.
The first one is achievable nearly everywhere and would be quite popular. Except with those who already own homes. Building high-density housing will lower housing prices for those nearby. The video covers this well.
The second isn't going to work in the US. Homes are the #1 generational wealth is accrued and how people rise in economic standing. From paycheck-dependent to stable, etc. Trying to take that away without some other way to build wealth and especially without a national retirement system is going to be deeply unpopular.
Another aspect I found very interesting: Tokyo demolishes and rebuilds every house on average every 30 years. That's wild to me. They build for safety but not longevity. No one wants a pre-owned house. Couple this with the inheritance tax and I imagine most older people will just sell their homes or pass down only a small amount. Japan's Public Pension System makes this feasible as well and without that I can't see this becoming viable in America.
I also wonder how wasteful that kind of demolition ends up being.
Extremely wasteful - and that's to say nothing of the obvious climate impacts from said waste. It's one hell of a drawback to what I would otherwise describe as a system that works pretty well.
A-fucking-men.
"The market" sets wages. My ass, the market is Billybob greedy asshat saying "I won't pay more than this." Then Timmyjoe fuckwit says "well the market has spoken, it would be stupid of me to pay more when Billybob is only paying x"
And for you theorists out there "supply of labor will affect wages" let me introduce you to the new excuse: "No OnE wAnTs To WoRk AnYmOrE!" Can't hire at the shit wage that's out there? Just complain no one wants to work!
This comment is essentially commodity fetishism ELI5'd and I love it
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(Marxism)
Public housing would be a step in the right direction
We've had that in the US and they're referred to as "the projects."
What's your point?
That it was an abject failure of an idea and most of these places were torn down. I'm not arguing that public housing is bad but I don't think we're capable of implementing it in a good way here in the US.
It could be changed to penalize or disincentivize people from owning multiple homes through taxes. Like maybe tax the shit out of anyone that owns more than two in order to allow the middle class the chance to purchase a rental property but stop the ultra wealthy from from buying up entire neighborhoods.
The way my town does it is everyone pays the same rate, but you get a huge exemption on your primary home, so effectively higher taxes on investment properties
... What's the issue?
They paid for the next place, including fees, and still have $50k in their pocket? How greedy does someone need to be, exactly, before we consider the behavior repugnant?
The issue is that they sold a large home and bought a small home and had very little money left over. It doesn't make financial political sense to do that. They might as well stay where they are. There is little incentive to downsize.
Part of the solution to the housing crisis is solving that incentive problem.
The have their new property paid for and also have a much smaller property tax bill and lower maintenance costs. There's still plenty of incentive to downsize.
Paying taxes on profit might hurt a little, but it's a good problem to have.
What? They would have a much bigger property tax bill
If their smaller new house is worth less than their original the property tax bill will be less. This is one of the incentives to downsizing.
That's not how property taxes work in California. They're likely paying way less than they would be if they bought a new house, even if it was smaller
Aww, poor them. They only had enough left over to pay fully for their next place and pocket $50k.
As long as you ignore property taxes and maintenance costs. Which normal people don't ignore.
Maintenance costs are probably fairly minimal given how little wear and tear happens in an empty nest. And property taxes for elderly folks are usually frozen or nearly frozen in place - meaning the next buyer will be paying a much higher tax on the same house because they won't qualify for those exemptions.
It seems like you don't own a home, so I'm not sure there's much point in continuing this conversation.
To the contrary - I own a large home in an urban area and it is filled with my children. But we don't have to have a conversation - I was only pointing out the flaws in your logic. My tax bill will be $12k this year while my elderly next door neighbor's will be a fraction of that. Our homes are identical (3k sqft over 3 floors). She's not leaving because it would make little financial sense to do so. This is quite common.
Sounds like one of those people that doesn't take a raise because it'll put them in a new tax bracket. People that don't know how the adult world works.
I think the issue is that with mortgage prices and the incredible costs of homes in California, capital gains tax comes into play for them when the vast majority of homeowners never even consider it.
So you have people with a large single family home wanting to sell and move into a small single family home (1-2bed) or even a condo and they end up with no benefit from doing so and potentially even an expensive mortgage. Essentially they are selling an Escalade to get a Civic and breaking even, which seems odd.
I think the capital gains tax exception should be expanded to be waived for single family homes under XXXX sq ft, with the above stipulations (living in the home continuously). It's not these people's fault their neighborhood shot up in price outpacing regulations meant to protect normal home owners.
Their only real out in this situation is to move away from where they've lived their whole lives.
Waive tax for primary residence, tax the everliving fuck out of non-primary residences to the point nobody wants to rent them out anymore.
Nope. No exceptions. You made money for doing no work, you pay taxes on that money. Plain and simple. Cap Gains tax rates are already absurdly low, so frankly anybody asking for a further reduced rate or exception is already a greedy pig not worth listening to.
I see you've never sold a house. If you do, have fun losing 15% of that value. The only way to prevent that is for your house to not accrue any value while you lived in it.
Cry to someone that gives a shit. Be less greedy. I've paid my share of capital gains, you don't see me crying like a greedy little piggy about it.
It's too bad no one agrees with you and you'll die mad about it.
Seems like plenty people agree taxes should be paid. In fact so many people agree that it's a law. Your greed will never fill that void, btw.
You can actually deduct the cost of any improvements you've made to the home. You can't do much about inflation costs, but are you really arguing that it's bad to only receive 85% of free money rather than 0% by not selling?
Except you aren't just selling. You also have to buy. And if from the tax and high housing prices it's a wash to downsize, there's not nearly the incentive to.
High housing prices also mean a high selling price for you too and taxes being percentage based means there's never a scenario where you wind up with less money than you would from selling a smaller, cheaper house because regardless of where you are, bigger houses sell for a lot more than smaller houses. The only scenario where this makes sense is if you sold a large home in a place like rural Oklahoma and moved to a shoebox in San Francisco, but that's not what's being described in the article.
You've missed the point. People are breaking even downsizing. That'll mean they won't. It goes over this in detail in the article.
If I've missed the point then why can't you explain how big houses are selling for nearly the same as small houses to the point where people are breaking even going from 3000sqft 5 bedroom homes to a 1200sqft 2 bedroom? A 15-20% loss from capital gains over 500k isn't going to do that nor is an additional 15% tax from California.
The only possible scenario where that makes sense is if you're comparing a $500k home from a married couple to another couple with a home valued at 30% over $500k. For those people, they're going to receive the same as the couple who had $500k in capital gains. This is a math problem so you can't just waive it away with "my opinion is different and you missed my point."
The example in the article is absurd as a single family home with property isn't going to sell for slightly more than a condo unit in some giant complex. That's why they had to rely on an example with made up numbers. If you look up a home their size in El Cerrito, just outside San Francisco, you're looking at $1.6M while a condo is going for $400k. Surely they could afford a $400k condo with $1.37M in profit.
So now you're doubting the article because you've got nothing else. Cherry picking numbers so you don't have to face the arguments presented.
You haven't presented any argument other than saying "you're wrong," and yes I absolutely disagree with the article based on real, verifiable facts. Cherry picking numbers? The numbers in the article are fictional. You can go check out Trulia or Zillow and see the selling price for a home that size and the purchase price of a condo in the same area.
Condos generally aren't much cheaper than houses. They would have the same issue if their region's real estate was half as expensive. They would have had this problem 10, 20, 30 years ago if they were retiring. If you sell a house in an expensive area and want money left over, you either have to choose a shittier house/apartment to live, or a cheaper area.
Their home is worth 2mil. They absolutely would not be stepping backward.
It's a ridiculous scenario considering the real value of their home. They might as well have invented a scenario where these people only get $100k for their 3000sqft, 5 bedroom home and then have to pay $2M for a one bedroom condo on the bad side of town.
That's a fictional scenario, though. Why would an entire house be selling for the same price as a tiny condo with HOA fees? These people have a huge house worth millions of dollars, so I'm confused why they would use a $500k sale price in their hypothetical scenario.
Sure those are made up numbers but they illustrate a real issue. Where i live, and I’m sure other high cost of living areas, it’s the land that’s expensive, in short supply. The actual house might be a much smaller part of that.
What that turns into is prices may be insane, but a house isn’t much more than a condo isn’t much more than a vacant lot. Then when you buy, taxes are reset to the new value, so property taxes will now be much higher and realtors commission will be insane. So they need to take a mortgage and take a cost of living hit on the taxes, then are clobbered by high interest. They may literally not be able to afford to downsize