this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2024
124 points (79.0% liked)

News

30260 readers
4060 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. 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

After 33 years and four children, Baby Boomers Marta and Octavian Dragos say they feel trapped in what was once their dream home in El Cerrito, California.

Both over 70, the Dragos are empty nesters, and like many of their generation, they’re trying to figure out how to downsize from their 3,000-square-foot, five-bedroom home.

“We are here in a huge house with no family nearby, trying to make a wise decision, both financially and for our well-being,” said Dragos, a retired teacher.

But selling and downsizing isn’t easy, appealing or even financially advantageous for many homeowners like the Dragos family.

Many Boomers whose homes have surged in value now face massive capital gains tax bills when they sell. This is a kind of tax on the profit you make when selling an investment or an asset, like a home, that has increased in value.

Plus, smaller homes or apartments in the neighborhoods they’ve come to love are rare. And with current prices and mortgage rates so high, there is often a negligible cost difference between their current home and a smaller one.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] friend_of_satan@lemmy.world 39 points 1 year ago (5 children)

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:

A homeowner who keeps all the profit of a home that sells for $500,000, for example, may find that a condo in their same area, where they can age in place, is $450,000. After calculating realtor fees and closing costs, the profit hardly covers the new purchase, let alone provides any extra income for retirement.

This is the real reason they are not moving. They would be stepping backwards financially instead of stepping forward.

[–] ComradePorkRoll@lemmy.world 65 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Feels like the crux of this whole thing is that housing shouldn't be an investment.

[–] newthrowaway20@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Good luck changing that. Housing has been a promised vehicle for wealth growth to multiple generations.

[–] Pringles@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Or build more apartments maybe? The entire housing crisis in the US could be easily solved by adding sufficient apartments in the right places.

[–] drdabbles@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

... 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?

[–] friend_of_satan@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] drdabbles@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Aww, poor them. They only had enough left over to pay fully for their next place and pocket $50k.

There is little incentive to downsize.

As long as you ignore property taxes and maintenance costs. Which normal people don't ignore.

[–] Blooper@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] drdabbles@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It seems like you don't own a home, so I'm not sure there's much point in continuing this conversation.

[–] Blooper@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] drdabbles@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] ReluctantMuskrat@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Fal@yiffit.net 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What? They would have a much bigger property tax bill

[–] ReluctantMuskrat@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Fal@yiffit.net 3 points 1 year ago

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

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 14 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Their home is worth 2mil. They absolutely would not be stepping backward.

[–] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 2 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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