this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2024
125 points (79.1% liked)

News

23387 readers
2333 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
 

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
[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 87 points 10 months ago (14 children)

Most homeowners don’t have to pay capital gains on their home when they sell. Thanks to tax legislation from the ’90s, a gain of up to $250,000 for a single tax filer or $500,000 for a couple filing jointly is exempt from tax. That’s providing the sale is of the homeowner’s primary residence and that they meet other requirements such as living in the property for two of the past five years.

That means if a couple bought a median priced home in 1987 for $100,000 and they’ve lived there as their primary residence and are selling it today for $550,000, the $450,000 gain from that investment is not taxed because it falls under the $500,000 exclusion to capital gains taxes.

However, if those same $100,000 homebuyers lived for 37 years in an area that has seen enormous growth in home values — as is the case for many parts of California — and their home now sells for $2 million dollars, that’s nearly $1.9 million in profit, of which only $500,000 is excluded from taxes.

Oh, how horrible. /s

[–] friend_of_satan@lemmy.world 39 points 10 months 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 10 months ago (3 children)

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

[–] newthrowaway20@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago

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

[–] Neato@ttrpg.network 2 points 10 months ago (4 children)

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.

[–] pruwybn@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

How could it be changed so it wouldn’t be?

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

[–] Neato@ttrpg.network 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Interesting. So there's 2 main reasons and 1 knock-on effect on why Tokyo (not Japan, just Tokyo) has affordable housing.

  1. They build a LOT of housing. Tons of dense housing which most other countries don't match.
  2. 55% inheritance tax, no exemption. Meaning generational accrual of wealth from houses can't happen.

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] betheydocrime@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Public housing would be a step in the right direction

[–] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

We've had that in the US and they're referred to as "the projects."

[–] betheydocrime@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 1 points 9 months ago

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.

[–] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] drdabbles@lemmy.world 19 points 10 months ago (2 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 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months 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 9 months ago (4 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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] ReluctantMuskrat@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months 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 9 months ago (2 children)

What? They would have a much bigger property tax bill

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Neato@ttrpg.network 1 points 10 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Szymon@lemmy.ca 15 points 10 months ago

Waive tax for primary residence, tax the everliving fuck out of non-primary residences to the point nobody wants to rent them out anymore.

[–] drdabbles@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (12 children)

think the capital gains tax exception

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.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 14 points 10 months 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 10 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 2 points 9 months 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 9 months 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 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months 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

[–] dmtalon@infosec.pub 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Haha, I mean I get it... Giving away money to uncle sam sucks but I agree with your sentiment. They are coming out ahead, that house was an investment that is paying dividends. I am hoping to have that problem some day!

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Contributing financially to the democratic society in which you spent the entire time of gaining monetary value able to vote which enabled the increase in value of your property? That’s the thing here, this isn’t throwing money away, and it isn’t imposed without your say. Taxes aren’t fun, and we don’t always like where they go, but as adults we should be able to respect them. They’re part of how our society functions and a necessary component of many nice things we need in order to prosper.

This long time anti tax attitude in this country is part of what destroyed our infrastructure, ruined our regulatory bodies, and contributed to our massive wealth gap.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 2 points 10 months ago

Isn't this where the boomers use a 1031 exchange and convert the large home into a smaller luxury condo for themselves and a few lower income units to rent out to struggling Millenials?

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

I forgot about all the people howling and foaming at the mouth about the "death tax". Boomers gonna boomer I guess.

[–] Pistcow@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago

Rent it, buy a new house, die, and the tax threshold on estates is $2 million.

load more comments (9 replies)