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

[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.

[Anonymous]

The home equity will be wiped out by nursing home expenses in a few years.

[Anonymous]

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.

I mean, neither can I and I'm 52. My dad retired from a fed gig after 20 years and got a pension equal to 75% of his last years salary, along with free healthcare for life. He unfortunately died 8 years later but my mom gets his pension until her death which isn't even on the horizon. She's getting somethin like 95K a year, every year, until she dies just off that. Another 4 grand a month in SS, house is paid, taxes are senior exempted, etc etc etc

Both my wife and I work full time (white collar professionals) and we will never have anything close to that.

Life aint fair. Sometimes timing matters.

Most people don't have pensions. Just career military and government workers.

Right, that's my point. In my grandfather's era everyone had a pension and wages were proportionately higher. My dad was born in '41 and most of his peers had pensions/retirement too.

My wife and I (both masters educated professionals) live frugally, invest heavily, sent kids to state schools, etc and will never get to point where our investments generate $15,000 a month in income.

It just the way life works. The later you get to the party the crappier the food selection gets.

[Anonymous]

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.

I mean, neither can I and I'm 52. My dad retired from a fed gig after 20 years and got a pension equal to 75% of his last years salary, along with free healthcare for life. He unfortunately died 8 years later but my mom gets his pension until her death which isn't even on the horizon. She's getting somethin like 95K a year, every year, until she dies just off that. Another 4 grand a month in SS, house is paid, taxes are senior exempted, etc etc etc

Both my wife and I work full time (white collar professionals) and we will never have anything close to that.

Life aint fair. Sometimes timing matters.

Most people don't have pensions. Just career military and government workers.

Right, that's my point. In my grandfather's era everyone had a pension and wages were proportionately higher. My dad was born in '41 and most of his peers had pensions/retirement too.

My wife and I (both masters educated professionals) live frugally, invest heavily, sent kids to state schools, etc and will never get to point where our investments generate $15,000 a month in income.

It just the way life works. The later you get to the party the crappier the food selection gets.

Huh? Humans have never had it this good. 15k a month is a very high retirement income so I’m not sure why you highlight that income level.

[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?

Soooooo many boomers living in our neighborhood of 4-5 bedroom houses in Alexandria. They all have huge yards (for the area). If they wanted they could easily sell for 1-1.5 million. They're not leaving because they don't want to downsize. Personally, I can't imagine wanting this suburban lifestyle in my 70s . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Soooooo many boomers living in our neighborhood of 4-5 bedroom houses in Alexandria. They all have huge yards (for the area). If they wanted they could easily sell for 1-1.5 million. They're not leaving because they don't want to downsize. Personally, I can't imagine wanting this suburban lifestyle in my 70s . . .

For every younger person eschewing suburban life in their senior years, there are plenty of older people who will say the thought of urban living with shared walls as a senior is the last thing they want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Soooooo many boomers living in our neighborhood of 4-5 bedroom houses in Alexandria. They all have huge yards (for the area). If they wanted they could easily sell for 1-1.5 million. They're not leaving because they don't want to downsize. Personally, I can't imagine wanting this suburban lifestyle in my 70s . . .

These are the same boomers probably voting to veto new housing and introduce property tax amendment favoring the elderly

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

That's because CA passed that crazy law that I think property taxes can't increase more than 1.5% per year, and only re-adjust on a new sale.

[Anonymous]

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.

I mean, neither can I and I'm 52. My dad retired from a fed gig after 20 years and got a pension equal to 75% of his last years salary, along with free healthcare for life. He unfortunately died 8 years later but my mom gets his pension until her death which isn't even on the horizon. She's getting somethin like 95K a year, every year, until she dies just off that. Another 4 grand a month in SS, house is paid, taxes are senior exempted, etc etc etc

Both my wife and I work full time (white collar professionals) and we will never have anything close to that.

Life aint fair. Sometimes timing matters.

Most people don't have pensions. Just career military and government workers.

Right, that's my point. In my grandfather's era everyone had a pension and wages were proportionately higher. My dad was born in '41 and most of his peers had pensions/retirement too.

My wife and I (both masters educated professionals) live frugally, invest heavily, sent kids to state schools, etc and will never get to point where our investments generate $15,000 a month in income.

It just the way life works. The later you get to the party the crappier the food selection gets.

Yeah but our current policies are like the crappy food is left but there’s still some nice platters in the back of the fridge and we’re packaging them in to go boxes for the people who arrived first. And those same people are telling the latecomers they should have planned better while walking out the door with their to go bags. It’s just obnoxious at a certain point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Soooooo many boomers living in our neighborhood of 4-5 bedroom houses in Alexandria. They all have huge yards (for the area). If they wanted they could easily sell for 1-1.5 million. They're not leaving because they don't want to downsize. Personally, I can't imagine wanting this suburban lifestyle in my 70s . . .

These are the same boomers probably voting to veto new housing and introduce property tax amendment favoring the elderly

This!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Soooooo many boomers living in our neighborhood of 4-5 bedroom houses in Alexandria. They all have huge yards (for the area). If they wanted they could easily sell for 1-1.5 million. They're not leaving because they don't want to downsize. Personally, I can't imagine wanting this suburban lifestyle in my 70s . . .

The #1 problem is you hit an age where it is very hard to make significant decisions. I saw it in my own parents and now seeing it with spouse's parents. They don't want to deal with the large house, but are paralyzed about how to solve for that. If you are planning to make the move, you probably need to really put that plan in earnest in your 60s.

They would never say that's why they aren't moving, but you see it with all kinds of everyday decisions as well. Just a complete paralysis about getting a new car (when the old one breaks down a ton and has none of the safety features you would want for an elderly driver) or other similar decisions.

When I read this article, that is the takeaway for me for basically all the people they interview.