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

[Anonymous]

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.

Speak for yourself. I’m a millennial with a$4.5M NW. More than my parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People upset at boomers "hoarding" houses, where do you want the boomers to move to if you force them to sell? You'd just be driving them into the starter home markets if the goal is to get them to move to smaller properties.

There is no logic here. Just angry spiel and rambling typical of unintelligent left wing progressives.

Then get rid of 55 plus communities. Look at homes in Boca raton. Hundreds of very affordable homes listed there until you see they are age restricted.

Boca Raton? These people are retired or close to it. I thought you wanted to get the boomers to move out of here? Logic isn't your strong suit.

HUD usually has an exclusion of either one person who buys must fit with the age restriction. The other person(s) do not. That explains why one sees an elderly spouse in an age restricted community with a sweet 30-something on his or her arm, typically a second or third marriage. Typically his arm. Or, via HUD a certain percentage of younger buyers who do not yet meet the age restriction can buy into these age restricted communities. Whether you'd want to or not is a different issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So, increase rents?

Nope. Rent control.

[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.

Because we are giving people who had decades of their life to save a break but not giving a break to younger people just starting out.

Why should a 28 year old with student loans and daycare bills to pay have to pay more taxes than the 78 year old who has paid off their mortgage?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m entitled and bratty for thinking people of all generations should pay for themselves instead of younger people with families to raise also subsidizing the older people? Ummm okay. Yeah it’s not me who is the entitled one in this scenario.

[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 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.

Because we are giving people who had decades of their life to save a break but not giving a break to younger people just starting out.

Why should a 28 year old with student loans and daycare bills to pay have to pay more taxes than the 78 year old who has paid off their mortgage?

Some day that will be you and you will sing a different tune. That's why nobody takes you seriously.

[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 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.

Because we are giving people who had decades of their life to save a break but not giving a break to younger people just starting out.

Why should a 28 year old with student loans and daycare bills to pay have to pay more taxes than the 78 year old who has paid off their mortgage?

Some day that will be you and you will sing a different tune. That's why nobody takes you seriously.

I genuinely do not understand your thought process but I want to learn more. Why is it good public policy to allow seniors to stay in place? Are you saying this about truly disadvantaged seniors and PP is focused on seniors in homes too large for them in prime areas? Please, enlighten me

[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 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.

Because we are giving people who had decades of their life to save a break but not giving a break to younger people just starting out.

Why should a 28 year old with student loans and daycare bills to pay have to pay more taxes than the 78 year old who has paid off their mortgage?

Some day that will be you and you will sing a different tune. That's why nobody takes you seriously.

I genuinely do not understand your thought process but I want to learn more. Why is it good public policy to allow seniors to stay in place? Are you saying this about truly disadvantaged seniors and PP is focused on seniors in homes too large for them in prime areas? Please, enlighten me

I truly want to understand why you want to kick the elderly out of the homes they have bought and paid for. They played by the rules and now you want to change the rules because you think you deserve a better deal. You can make more money, you have you whole life in front of you. The elderly have no place to go but down. You will be old too some day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Holy. Sh#t.

This article was eye opening and sobering. And fully explains why Boomers are so disconnected from the economic struggles faced by their own children.

Other fun facts:
-“About 28% of all U.S. homes with three or more bedrooms are owned by people between the ages of 60 and 78 living by themselves or with another adult, according to a Redfin analysis of 2022 census data. Millennials living with children own just 14% of these bigger homes.”

-“A recent Fannie Mae survey found that most Americans 60 and older don’t intend to ever move.”

-“Boomers own half of all of the $32 trillion in home equity in the U.S.”

https://www.wsj.com/economy/housing/baby-boomers-big-homes-real-estate-inventory-3a047cb6

stop whining! does all this whining help you in some way? no. it doesn't.

idk about anyone else, but we certainly do not have a housing cost of only $612, nor does anyone i know. here, taxes are more than that even with a paid off house.

just because someone wrote an article, doesn't make it true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

Because we are giving people who had decades of their life to save a break but not giving a break to younger people just starting out.

Why should a 28 year old with student loans and daycare bills to pay have to pay more taxes than the 78 year old who has paid off their mortgage?

Some day that will be you and you will sing a different tune. That's why nobody takes you seriously.

I genuinely do not understand your thought process but I want to learn more. Why is it good public policy to allow seniors to stay in place? Are you saying this about truly disadvantaged seniors and PP is focused on seniors in homes too large for them in prime areas? Please, enlighten me

I truly want to understand why you want to kick the elderly out of the homes they have bought and paid for. They played by the rules and now you want to change the rules because you think you deserve a better deal. You can make more money, you have you whole life in front of you. The elderly have no place to go but down. You will be old too some day.

The question here is whether these elderly folk deserve to pay less property tax vs their neighbor simply because of their age. They are getting a better deal now because the rules are set up that way, and the question is if we should change it. If they own their home, presumably a paid off home, they have equity. I sympathize that the equity is often inaccessible for the elderly. But they have options. They could sell (if they wanted, no one is forcing them) and downsize. They could rent. But why should they be able to pay less taxes?

[Anonymous]

I actually think it’s pretty rare for elderly to stay in really high value homes unless there is a particular reason (like caring for grandkids nearby). Most r the boomers are staying in houses that are run down or in not very desirable locations — most of the ones around here are cashing out and moving to the Carolina’s or Florida. The ones in Ohio, upstate New York, western PA, etc etc are pretty stuck. Even some places around here…if you are a boomer in an unrelated Levitt house in Bowie, can you get enough for it to buy into a nice over 55 community?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

Because we are giving people who had decades of their life to save a break but not giving a break to younger people just starting out.

Why should a 28 year old with student loans and daycare bills to pay have to pay more taxes than the 78 year old who has paid off their mortgage?

Some day that will be you and you will sing a different tune. That's why nobody takes you seriously.

I genuinely do not understand your thought process but I want to learn more. Why is it good public policy to allow seniors to stay in place? Are you saying this about truly disadvantaged seniors and PP is focused on seniors in homes too large for them in prime areas? Please, enlighten me

I truly want to understand why you want to kick the elderly out of the homes they have bought and paid for. They played by the rules and now you want to change the rules because you think you deserve a better deal. You can make more money, you have you whole life in front of you. The elderly have no place to go but down. You will be old too some day.

The question here is whether these elderly folk deserve to pay less property tax vs their neighbor simply because of their age. They are getting a better deal now because the rules are set up that way, and the question is if we should change it. If they own their home, presumably a paid off home, they have equity. I sympathize that the equity is often inaccessible for the elderly. But they have options. They could sell (if they wanted, no one is forcing them) and downsize. They could rent. But why should they be able to pay less taxes?

And when their end of life care bills spiral out of control they will be forced to sell. The vast majority of boomers haven't saved enough. All that wealth they supposedly have is concentrated in a tiny fraction of the hands, as usual. Most are not that well off. Their financial ruin will come soon enough, is that what they deserve? You would probably say yes. Plenty of millennials are doing quite well and can afford their taxes. Or maybe they should move somewhere more affordable, see how that works?

[Anonymous]

My boomer parents in NJ, notorious for the highest property taxes in the nation, rent out their basement to cover it. They have friends in the neighborhood who have gone so far as renting out bedrooms for even more monthly income. It’s good for all parties involved. More housing supply!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I actually think it’s pretty rare for elderly to stay in really high value homes unless there is a particular reason (like caring for grandkids nearby). Most r the boomers are staying in houses that are run down or in not very desirable locations — most of the ones around here are cashing out and moving to the Carolina’s or Florida. The ones in Ohio, upstate New York, western PA, etc etc are pretty stuck. Even some places around here…if you are a boomer in an unrelated Levitt house in Bowie, can you get enough for it to buy into a nice over 55 community?

I'm 66. I am not elderly, I work, and I am fully a thriving member of my neighborhood comprised of 20 somethings to 70 somethings. Our houses aren't large, they aren't new, and we have a vibrant community. There's no way I would want to move to a hellish over 55 community with people all in one age group (which, btw, has a few different generations in that age group category-we aren't a monolith), cliques, high prices, etc. If you think I have to move out of my house for some idea that I need to be corralled with "my own kind"- that is the definition of ageist.

[Anonymous]

My parents are in their 80's and they have been "grandfathered" in to low property taxes of $3,500 a year on a $2M future teardown property in California. They bought the house in the late 70's for $135,000. I just bought my first property, which is a $500K 2BR condo in Arlington and my property taxes are higher than my parents.