The median Boomer has a housing cost of $612. That includes taxes and insurance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s because we have stupid “age in place” incentives, which aren’t good public policy.

Being older isn’t an excuse not to pay your share of property taxes (some locales lock taxes in place based on age).

Keeping older people in giant SFHs (which are a finite resource in areas near job centers) is terrible public policy. It’s not environmentally friendly to have one or two people using all these utilities. And as in the case of my aging MIL who refuses to move, it leads to a lot of family stress from falling down the stairs (already had one hospital stay and she continues to go downhill as her giant home falls into disrepair).

Everyone likes to tell younger people you don’t always get what you want, but why can’t we say the same to older people? We as a society shouldn’t have to subsidize them through low property taxes just because they want to sit in their wealth without tapping into equity to pay taxes or move. We shouldn’t be giving tax credits so they can modify their homes to make them adapted to the elderly.

If you want to stay in your big house as you get old then you need to be able to pay for it yourself (taxes, modifications, and all). It’s so hypocritical to tell younger people that if they want something they have to save/pay for it themselves, but then also expect society to help them afford what they want.

I agree, with one caveat. Everyone should absolutely pay their fair share in taxes. But on the other hand, it's understandable that older people who have lived in a house for their whole lives resent having to move. Rather than subsidies, or locking low rates/assessments in place, we should have a program where senior citizens can defer some or all of their taxes until either they move or sell the property, whichever comes first. When that happens, the back taxes become due, along with some reasonable interest.

So no, a senior citizen isn't forces out of their home because they can't afford the taxes. But neither are they absolved from paying what they owe forever.

What you owe depends on current tax policy. Estate tax policy has fluctuated so that some years people pay nothing on their inheritances. If the government wants to free up housing, they need to make it easier for people to afford to move by incentivizing both the owners and the developers so that there are better alternatives.

This has nothing to do with estate taxes. Did you reply to the wrong post?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s because we have stupid “age in place” incentives, which aren’t good public policy.

Being older isn’t an excuse not to pay your share of property taxes (some locales lock taxes in place based on age).

Keeping older people in giant SFHs (which are a finite resource in areas near job centers) is terrible public policy. It’s not environmentally friendly to have one or two people using all these utilities. And as in the case of my aging MIL who refuses to move, it leads to a lot of family stress from falling down the stairs (already had one hospital stay and she continues to go downhill as her giant home falls into disrepair).

Everyone likes to tell younger people you don’t always get what you want, but why can’t we say the same to older people? We as a society shouldn’t have to subsidize them through low property taxes just because they want to sit in their wealth without tapping into equity to pay taxes or move. We shouldn’t be giving tax credits so they can modify their homes to make them adapted to the elderly.

If you want to stay in your big house as you get old then you need to be able to pay for it yourself (taxes, modifications, and all). It’s so hypocritical to tell younger people that if they want something they have to save/pay for it themselves, but then also expect society to help them afford what they want.

I agree, with one caveat. Everyone should absolutely pay their fair share in taxes. But on the other hand, it's understandable that older people who have lived in a house for their whole lives resent having to move. Rather than subsidies, or locking low rates/assessments in place, we should have a program where senior citizens can defer some or all of their taxes until either they move or sell the property, whichever comes first. When that happens, the back taxes become due, along with some reasonable interest.

So no, a senior citizen isn't forces out of their home because they can't afford the taxes. But neither are they absolved from paying what they owe forever.

What you owe depends on current tax policy. Estate tax policy has fluctuated so that some years people pay nothing on their inheritances. If the government wants to free up housing, they need to make it easier for people to afford to move by incentivizing both the owners and the developers so that there are better alternatives.

This has nothing to do with estate taxes. Did you reply to the wrong post?

Read the post again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s because we have stupid “age in place” incentives, which aren’t good public policy.

Being older isn’t an excuse not to pay your share of property taxes (some locales lock taxes in place based on age).

Keeping older people in giant SFHs (which are a finite resource in areas near job centers) is terrible public policy. It’s not environmentally friendly to have one or two people using all these utilities. And as in the case of my aging MIL who refuses to move, it leads to a lot of family stress from falling down the stairs (already had one hospital stay and she continues to go downhill as her giant home falls into disrepair).

Everyone likes to tell younger people you don’t always get what you want, but why can’t we say the same to older people? We as a society shouldn’t have to subsidize them through low property taxes just because they want to sit in their wealth without tapping into equity to pay taxes or move. We shouldn’t be giving tax credits so they can modify their homes to make them adapted to the elderly.

If you want to stay in your big house as you get old then you need to be able to pay for it yourself (taxes, modifications, and all). It’s so hypocritical to tell younger people that if they want something they have to save/pay for it themselves, but then also expect society to help them afford what they want.

I think it’s good public policy to allow people on fixed incomes to remain in the homes they’ve lived in for decades. Why do you have such a problem with giving retired people a break on property taxes? Not everyone has some huge nest egg to draw from.

"Fixed" income is sort of a misnomer. They receive COLAs similar to military personnel, teachers, cops, etc. Most people have a fixed salary and aren't working off of commissions.

And if they were paying the right property taxes, taxes would be adjusted down for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know where those fictional people live where $612 includes taxes and insurance but it isn’t around here. I also don’t understand why it’s so difficult to process why people living on a fixed income with a paid off mortgage don’t want to leave their homes that they spent years paying for and enjoying.

+100

[Anonymous]

I totally understand they dont want to move, but they also need to pay their taxes. I don’t need to subsidize your child or grandchild’s inheritance. Put your equity to work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stop your whining and get a therapist to help you deal with your very transparent issues with your parents.

NP. My parents aren’t Boomers but I legitimately don’t see how people don’t understand why Millrennials/Gen Z/Gen Alpha feel enraged that no matter how hard they work they will never have the ability to build wealth the way previous generations did.

Who do you think is going to inherit the houses and 401k balances of boomers?

The elder care industry.

Some, but not all of it. In the next decade or two, we’re going to see an inheritance windfall like never before. It’s not like the past where retirement was tied up in pensions and Social Security. Boomers and GenX are sitting on trillions in retirement savings, living off the interest. They can’t possibly spend the principle in their lifetimes.

So here's an idea Millennials/Gen Z/Gen Alpha: use ur technology skills to build better platforms to deliver those elder care services. U know...sort of like being the Amazon for elder care service delivery. Just beats whining about that job. Be the change u want to see.
The price for in-home elder care is easily going to hit $150-200/hour in the next 15 years. We will have soooooo many Boomers who will need care but will have a shortage of facilities, doctors, nurses, and home health aides. Medicare and Medicaid will likely only cover a small fraction of the actual market-based costs. Lots of practitioners will stop accepting Medicare and Medicaid except absolute bottom-of-the-barrel crap.

The massive “inheritance windfall” will only be among a relatively small cohort of ultra-high net worth white families.

Honestly it’s completing unsurprising that it will cost so much. Providing physical care to adults who may have memory and toilet care issues is exhausting hard work. Not that many people want to do it so they demand outstrips the supply.

The boomers don’t seem to have much empathy for younger people dealing with unfavorable supply and demand for housing, so I just don’t have much empathy for the cost of eldercare. Younger people can’t force older people to sell their homes and older people can’t force younger people to change their diapers.

Also, the flip side of all the home equity older people have built up is that high cost of living now means labor prices are increased. If they have to liquidate all their wealth to pay for their care so be it. And they should have been saving for it all along just like millennials are constantly be told if we want something we should save for it. Okay, well then take your own advice.

I feel so sorry for you, you seem entitled and bratty. Terrible way to go through your short number of years on this planet. GTFU.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s because we have stupid “age in place” incentives, which aren’t good public policy.

Being older isn’t an excuse not to pay your share of property taxes (some locales lock taxes in place based on age).

Keeping older people in giant SFHs (which are a finite resource in areas near job centers) is terrible public policy. It’s not environmentally friendly to have one or two people using all these utilities. And as in the case of my aging MIL who refuses to move, it leads to a lot of family stress from falling down the stairs (already had one hospital stay and she continues to go downhill as her giant home falls into disrepair).

Everyone likes to tell younger people you don’t always get what you want, but why can’t we say the same to older people? We as a society shouldn’t have to subsidize them through low property taxes just because they want to sit in their wealth without tapping into equity to pay taxes or move. We shouldn’t be giving tax credits so they can modify their homes to make them adapted to the elderly.

If you want to stay in your big house as you get old then you need to be able to pay for it yourself (taxes, modifications, and all). It’s so hypocritical to tell younger people that if they want something they have to save/pay for it themselves, but then also expect society to help them afford what they want.

I agree, with one caveat. Everyone should absolutely pay their fair share in taxes. But on the other hand, it's understandable that older people who have lived in a house for their whole lives resent having to move. Rather than subsidies, or locking low rates/assessments in place, we should have a program where senior citizens can defer some or all of their taxes until either they move or sell the property, whichever comes first. When that happens, the back taxes become due, along with some reasonable interest.

So no, a senior citizen isn't forces out of their home because they can't afford the taxes. But neither are they absolved from paying what they owe forever.

What you owe depends on current tax policy. Estate tax policy has fluctuated so that some years people pay nothing on their inheritances. If the government wants to free up housing, they need to make it easier for people to afford to move by incentivizing both the owners and the developers so that there are better alternatives.

This has nothing to do with estate taxes. Did you reply to the wrong post?

Read the post again.

I did, it's a non-sequitur. It seems like you disagree with the earlier post, but the response is so tangential that it's hard to tell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it was economically feasible for them to downsize, more would have been doing it. They face the same constraints the rest of us do if they try to downsize. Limited availability of small houses, hassle of selling / buying, and the price difference between their large “as is” sale and a small dwelling in same area doesn’t make financial sense for them. It’s the lack of housing options that keeps them in place.

Oh they have options….they just don’t want to pay for it. Don’t want to pay capital gains on home sale. Don’t want to pay more for less square footage, despite being newly renovated or in a better location.

Boomers want Big.

Did you move out of your bigger place to a more expensive smaller place for strangers? Why should they?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand this. Are boomers grandfathered in to low taxes and insurance or something? How on earth could they pay so much lower than the rest of us with similar houses?

When it comes to property taxes, many states (eg, California) and local jurisdictions (eg, DC and thousands of other cities & counties) cap property taxes from appreciating for long time home owners. So if you own your home for a long time, you will pay only a fraction in property taxes of what newer home owners will pay. This is especially true in areas that have seen rapid price appreciation in recent years.

It’s massively market-distorting and keeps older residents in their big homes because they don’t want to pay more in taxes. California tried to alleviate this by allowing older residents to sell their home and apply the original discounted property tax rate to a new property….its had mixed results. But even in California, you have houses in Malibu that are worth $10m but they pay the original property tax on the $300K value when they purchased the property in 1980. So maybe they pay $10K per year in property taxes while their next door neighbor pays $100K/year.

There’s variations of these tax distortions all over the US. Now apply this to vacation homes and investment properties, plus zoning restrictions….it puts younger buyers at a massive disadvantage.

This is insane! So the rest of us are subsidizing boomers?!

It is not just Boomers. My friend bought a home in Malibu CA and closed on it Jan 2020. Home prices in Malibu have had a massive increase since Jan 2020 and he locked in much lower taxes for life than people buying in 2024 as his is based off Jan 2020 prices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand this. Are boomers grandfathered in to low taxes and insurance or something? How on earth could they pay so much lower than the rest of us with similar houses?

When it comes to property taxes, many states (eg, California) and local jurisdictions (eg, DC and thousands of other cities & counties) cap property taxes from appreciating for long time home owners. So if you own your home for a long time, you will pay only a fraction in property taxes of what newer home owners will pay. This is especially true in areas that have seen rapid price appreciation in recent years.

It’s massively market-distorting and keeps older residents in their big homes because they don’t want to pay more in taxes. California tried to alleviate this by allowing older residents to sell their home and apply the original discounted property tax rate to a new property….its had mixed results. But even in California, you have houses in Malibu that are worth $10m but they pay the original property tax on the $300K value when they purchased the property in 1980. So maybe they pay $10K per year in property taxes while their next door neighbor pays $100K/year.

There’s variations of these tax distortions all over the US. Now apply this to vacation homes and investment properties, plus zoning restrictions….it puts younger buyers at a massive disadvantage.

This is insane! So the rest of us are subsidizing boomers?!

It is not just Boomers. My friend bought a home in Malibu CA and closed on it Jan 2020. Home prices in Malibu have had a massive increase since Jan 2020 and he locked in much lower taxes for life than people buying in 2024 as his is based off Jan 2020 prices.

If your friend can afford Maiibu, he can afford to pay his taxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand this. Are boomers grandfathered in to low taxes and insurance or something? How on earth could they pay so much lower than the rest of us with similar houses?

When it comes to property taxes, many states (eg, California) and local jurisdictions (eg, DC and thousands of other cities & counties) cap property taxes from appreciating for long time home owners. So if you own your home for a long time, you will pay only a fraction in property taxes of what newer home owners will pay. This is especially true in areas that have seen rapid price appreciation in recent years.

It’s massively market-distorting and keeps older residents in their big homes because they don’t want to pay more in taxes. California tried to alleviate this by allowing older residents to sell their home and apply the original discounted property tax rate to a new property….its had mixed results. But even in California, you have houses in Malibu that are worth $10m but they pay the original property tax on the $300K value when they purchased the property in 1980. So maybe they pay $10K per year in property taxes while their next door neighbor pays $100K/year.

There’s variations of these tax distortions all over the US. Now apply this to vacation homes and investment properties, plus zoning restrictions….it puts younger buyers at a massive disadvantage.

This is insane! So the rest of us are subsidizing boomers?!

Wait until you hear that in CA if they pass the home to their child, the child keeps the property taxes locked in at the parents’ previous rate. The reason is so the adult child who inherits won’t lose the home due to extreme increases in property values.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand this. Are boomers grandfathered in to low taxes and insurance or something? How on earth could they pay so much lower than the rest of us with similar houses?

When it comes to property taxes, many states (eg, California) and local jurisdictions (eg, DC and thousands of other cities & counties) cap property taxes from appreciating for long time home owners. So if you own your home for a long time, you will pay only a fraction in property taxes of what newer home owners will pay. This is especially true in areas that have seen rapid price appreciation in recent years.

It’s massively market-distorting and keeps older residents in their big homes because they don’t want to pay more in taxes. California tried to alleviate this by allowing older residents to sell their home and apply the original discounted property tax rate to a new property….its had mixed results. But even in California, you have houses in Malibu that are worth $10m but they pay the original property tax on the $300K value when they purchased the property in 1980. So maybe they pay $10K per year in property taxes while their next door neighbor pays $100K/year.

There’s variations of these tax distortions all over the US. Now apply this to vacation homes and investment properties, plus zoning restrictions….it puts younger buyers at a massive disadvantage.

This is insane! So the rest of us are subsidizing boomers?!

When it comes to taxes, everyone is subsidizing someone else. Single people and DINKs in a 2000sqft home are paying the same taxes as a family with 3 kids. Individuals pay more in Fed taxes than corporations. The middle class pay more Fed taxes than the rich. The poor pay no Fed taxes. But everyone gets equal access to services provided by the government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand this. Are boomers grandfathered in to low taxes and insurance or something? How on earth could they pay so much lower than the rest of us with similar houses?

When it comes to property taxes, many states (eg, California) and local jurisdictions (eg, DC and thousands of other cities & counties) cap property taxes from appreciating for long time home owners. So if you own your home for a long time, you will pay only a fraction in property taxes of what newer home owners will pay. This is especially true in areas that have seen rapid price appreciation in recent years.

It’s massively market-distorting and keeps older residents in their big homes because they don’t want to pay more in taxes. California tried to alleviate this by allowing older residents to sell their home and apply the original discounted property tax rate to a new property….its had mixed results. But even in California, you have houses in Malibu that are worth $10m but they pay the original property tax on the $300K value when they purchased the property in 1980. So maybe they pay $10K per year in property taxes while their next door neighbor pays $100K/year.

There’s variations of these tax distortions all over the US. Now apply this to vacation homes and investment properties, plus zoning restrictions….it puts younger buyers at a massive disadvantage.

This is insane! So the rest of us are subsidizing boomers?!

It is not just Boomers. My friend bought a home in Malibu CA and closed on it Jan 2020. Home prices in Malibu have had a massive increase since Jan 2020 and he locked in much lower taxes for life than people buying in 2024 as his is based off Jan 2020 prices.

If your friend can afford Maiibu, he can afford to pay his taxes.

He doesn’t have to. Good luck changing CA law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand this. Are boomers grandfathered in to low taxes and insurance or something? How on earth could they pay so much lower than the rest of us with similar houses?

When it comes to property taxes, many states (eg, California) and local jurisdictions (eg, DC and thousands of other cities & counties) cap property taxes from appreciating for long time home owners. So if you own your home for a long time, you will pay only a fraction in property taxes of what newer home owners will pay. This is especially true in areas that have seen rapid price appreciation in recent years.

It’s massively market-distorting and keeps older residents in their big homes because they don’t want to pay more in taxes. California tried to alleviate this by allowing older residents to sell their home and apply the original discounted property tax rate to a new property….its had mixed results. But even in California, you have houses in Malibu that are worth $10m but they pay the original property tax on the $300K value when they purchased the property in 1980. So maybe they pay $10K per year in property taxes while their next door neighbor pays $100K/year.

There’s variations of these tax distortions all over the US. Now apply this to vacation homes and investment properties, plus zoning restrictions….it puts younger buyers at a massive disadvantage.

This is insane! So the rest of us are subsidizing boomers?!

It is not just Boomers. My friend bought a home in Malibu CA and closed on it Jan 2020. Home prices in Malibu have had a massive increase since Jan 2020 and he locked in much lower taxes for life than people buying in 2024 as his is based off Jan 2020 prices.

If your friend can afford Maiibu, he can afford to pay his taxes.

He doesn’t have to. Good luck changing CA law.

Malibu was no bargain in Jan 2020. Your friend is still paying far more than his neighbors who bough in 1985.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand this. Are boomers grandfathered in to low taxes and insurance or something? How on earth could they pay so much lower than the rest of us with similar houses?

When it comes to property taxes, many states (eg, California) and local jurisdictions (eg, DC and thousands of other cities & counties) cap property taxes from appreciating for long time home owners. So if you own your home for a long time, you will pay only a fraction in property taxes of what newer home owners will pay. This is especially true in areas that have seen rapid price appreciation in recent years.

It’s massively market-distorting and keeps older residents in their big homes because they don’t want to pay more in taxes. California tried to alleviate this by allowing older residents to sell their home and apply the original discounted property tax rate to a new property….its had mixed results. But even in California, you have houses in Malibu that are worth $10m but they pay the original property tax on the $300K value when they purchased the property in 1980. So maybe they pay $10K per year in property taxes while their next door neighbor pays $100K/year.

There’s variations of these tax distortions all over the US. Now apply this to vacation homes and investment properties, plus zoning restrictions….it puts younger buyers at a massive disadvantage.

This is insane! So the rest of us are subsidizing boomers?!

Wait until you hear that in CA if they pass the home to their child, the child keeps the property taxes locked in at the parents’ previous rate. The reason is so the adult child who inherits won’t lose the home due to extreme increases in property values.

Only if they live in it. It used to be that the inheriting adult child could use it as an investment property and retain the property tax basis. The taxes still increase every year, it is not "frozen".