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

[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?!

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".

That is good policy. Tax breaks shouldn’t be given to investment properties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

This has been going on for 48 years in California. Are you going to bill everyone retroactively for not paying all those years because every homeowner benefitted?

[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?!

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".

That is good policy. Tax breaks shouldn’t be given to investment properties.

It was the real estate industry that sold this to the voters along with allowing the seniors to transfer their property tax basis to a new home in order to get the seniors out of their current homes.

[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?!

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".

That is good policy. Tax breaks shouldn’t be given to investment properties.

I agree. We need to allocate more real estate for primary homeowners.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?!

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".

That is good policy. Tax breaks shouldn’t be given to investment properties.

It was the real estate industry that sold this to the voters along with allowing the seniors to transfer their property tax basis to a new home in order to get the seniors out of their current homes.

That’s nice. Doesn’t change what I wrote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?!

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".

That is good policy. Tax breaks shouldn’t be given to investment properties.

I agree. We need to allocate more real estate for primary homeowners.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?!

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".

That is good policy. Tax breaks shouldn’t be given to investment properties.

I agree. We need to allocate more real estate for primary homeowners.

And dramatically increase taxes on second or investment homes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?!

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".

That is good policy. Tax breaks shouldn’t be given to investment properties.

I agree. We need to allocate more real estate for primary homeowners.

And dramatically increase taxes on second or investment homes.

Yes, like how many beach communities do.

[Anonymous]

Additional point - moving out of a house and into a new one is a tremendously stressful an exhausting thing to do, let alone sorting it out when you're elderly.

I'm in the middle of selling our home and finding and purchasing a new one. Packing, putting things into storage, moving, etc. is stressful, exhausting, and expensive. What if the boomer lives in their home, but only has social security, so cannot fund a down payment on their 2nd home without selling the first? Can afford their property tax bill, sure, but doesn't have much left to pay several grand to move (and that's assuming they pack themselves or have kids to help pack - it's prohibitively more expensive to hire someone to pack for you).

I'm only in my 40s but this experience alone has me pretty much wanting to stay in my next house till I die.

[Anonymous]

Ok, and??? If I stay in my house til I'm old, someday someone will be griping that my housing cost is super low too. That's what happens when you pay off your mortgage. Should I keep trading up just to stay in debt longer? That makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

He paid 2 million for a small home in Malibu. It is currently worth on redfin 3.5 million. A 2024 buyer of his exact house if he sold it would pay 75% more property tax. He has three kids so pretty sure home will be passed on to one. They are 15, 12 and 5. My bets on 5 year old getting it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I have no idea what you're going on about. We live in Northern Va and pay our taxes just like everyone else does. We were also able to afford our home by moving further out to the exurbs and commuting to work a longer distance. You really are clueless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I have no idea what you're going on about. We live in Northern Va and pay our taxes just like everyone else does. We were also able to afford our home by moving further out to the exurbs and commuting to work a longer distance. You really are clueless.

Many of these subsidies are based on income and/or net worth. Loudoun for example looks at both whereas I believe FFX just looks at income. It’s not as simple as - I’m old, no taxes for me! The same rules also apply to individuals that are fully disabled, but yet PP isn’t ready to shove them off to an apartment or a more expensive smaller home.

https://www.loudoun.gov/5002/Real-Property-Tax-Exemption-Elderly-Disa

[Anonymous]

OK, Zoomer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I have no idea what you're going on about. We live in Northern Va and pay our taxes just like everyone else does. We were also able to afford our home by moving further out to the exurbs and commuting to work a longer distance. You really are clueless.

Many of these subsidies are based on income and/or net worth. Loudoun for example looks at both whereas I believe FFX just looks at income. It’s not as simple as - I’m old, no taxes for me! The same rules also apply to individuals that are fully disabled, but yet PP isn’t ready to shove them off to an apartment or a more expensive smaller home.

https://www.loudoun.gov/5002/Real-Property-Tax-Exemption-Elderly-Disa

Nope, Fairfax looks at both. If you are 65 or older, and have a combined net worth over $400K (excluding the value of your home), you don't qualify for a property tax exemption in Fairfax, regardless of your income level.