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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine thinking it's fair to tax a beach house your grandfather worked and saved for for two decades simply so it puts pressure on the heirs to release it so some newcomer can have it.

This line of thought is insane.

I’m going to guess you have a beach house in the family that you love and are eyeing and worried you might have to release it because of taxes

That's me you're quoting, and no, I don't have a beach house. We rented the same teeny, crappy Kill Devil Hills sh*tbox every summer of my childhood the third week in July. No AC, no TV, no Phone. My memories from that are dear and I wouldn't change a thing. But, never in a million years would I feel entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Imagine thinking it's fair to tax a beach house your grandfather worked and saved for for two decades simply so it puts pressure on the heirs to release it so some newcomer can have it.

This line of thought is insane.

Clearly you have never taken a trust and estates or property law class. There is a public interest in not having all the wealth be concentrated and handed down continually to heirs. We’re not creating dynasties. The heirs will already have a leg up in inheriting a beach house in the first place. Why are we also giving them a leg up on taxes?

[Anonymous]

Why not just reduce capital gains tax for anyone over age 65 and who lived in the house for at least 20 years or something to that effect?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine thinking it's fair to tax a beach house your grandfather worked and saved for for two decades simply so it puts pressure on the heirs to release it so some newcomer can have it.

This line of thought is insane.

Clearly you have never taken a trust and estates or property law class. There is a public interest in not having all the wealth be concentrated and handed down continually to heirs. We’re not creating dynasties. The heirs will already have a leg up in inheriting a beach house in the first place. Why are we also giving them a leg up on taxes?

My opinion is invalid because I disagree with a theory taught in a "trust and estates or property law class."?

OK!

[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.

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.

What a sad tale of woe. Aren't there enough voters to outnumber the evil boomers yet? Or maybe it's just you and your inability to compete and earn enough to pay for the lifestyle you think you deserve.

I own a SFH in a close-in desirable neighborhood already and recognize that I benefited from the timing of a) being able to get on the property ladder right after the recession and b) then trading up to a nicer home (now worth about $1.3M) in 2018, which I was able to refinance to a sub 3% mortgage. My DH and I make good incomes so that we can afford to raise 3 kids with a nice lifestyle. So your little retort (a personal attack on someone you don’t even know and not an actual commentary on the issues being discussed) isn’t the burn you think it is.

But I have enough brain cells to look around and think, wow this income inequality isn’t sustainable. And to be fair, my complaints aren’t solely with boomers. We need to tax second homes and investment properties to free up inventory as well.

At least I’m not just pulling the ladder up behind me saying well the timing worked out well for me so too bad for everyone else. It’s clear from your response you are a selfish person who assumes every poster only cares about how public policies affect them personally (because why else assume that my concerns about the housing market are just sour grapes?).

I'm a different poster, but do you understand that these markets move in cycles, always have and always will. Second homes and investment properties in beach communities and mountain towns will tank, as they always do. Incomes will catch up with housing prices in major markets, as they always do. It may not be in your particular neighborhood, but it will be in others. Making public policy based on a couple years of cyclical data is dumb, dumb, dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine thinking it's fair to tax a beach house your grandfather worked and saved for for two decades simply so it puts pressure on the heirs to release it so some newcomer can have it.

This line of thought is insane.

Clearly you have never taken a trust and estates or property law class. There is a public interest in not having all the wealth be concentrated and handed down continually to heirs. We’re not creating dynasties. The heirs will already have a leg up in inheriting a beach house in the first place. Why are we also giving them a leg up on taxes?

My opinion is invalid because I disagree with a theory taught in a "trust and estates or property law class."?

OK!

I didn’t say it’s invalid. But you said that line of thinking is “insane.” And it’s actually not insane. It’s a line of thinking that forms the basis for many property-related policies in our country. You may disagree or not like it, but there’s actual logic behind disincentivizing properties staying in one family lineage indefinitely.

[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.

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.

What a sad tale of woe. Aren't there enough voters to outnumber the evil boomers yet? Or maybe it's just you and your inability to compete and earn enough to pay for the lifestyle you think you deserve.

I own a SFH in a close-in desirable neighborhood already and recognize that I benefited from the timing of a) being able to get on the property ladder right after the recession and b) then trading up to a nicer home (now worth about $1.3M) in 2018, which I was able to refinance to a sub 3% mortgage. My DH and I make good incomes so that we can afford to raise 3 kids with a nice lifestyle. So your little retort (a personal attack on someone you don’t even know and not an actual commentary on the issues being discussed) isn’t the burn you think it is.

But I have enough brain cells to look around and think, wow this income inequality isn’t sustainable. And to be fair, my complaints aren’t solely with boomers. We need to tax second homes and investment properties to free up inventory as well.

At least I’m not just pulling the ladder up behind me saying well the timing worked out well for me so too bad for everyone else. It’s clear from your response you are a selfish person who assumes every poster only cares about how public policies affect them personally (because why else assume that my concerns about the housing market are just sour grapes?).

Vote for change. Don’t you have the numbers on your side?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Imagine thinking it's fair to tax a beach house your grandfather worked and saved for for two decades simply so it puts pressure on the heirs to release it so some newcomer can have it.

This line of thought is insane.

The reason that beach town is an economic center is because people who can afford to visit and own homes there, visit and own homes there. Make it unattractive and that beach town shrinks or goes away. If cheaper housing is needed for certain workers than make it possible through development friendliness and zoning reform.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine thinking it's fair to tax a beach house your grandfather worked and saved for for two decades simply so it puts pressure on the heirs to release it so some newcomer can have it.

This line of thought is insane.

Clearly you have never taken a trust and estates or property law class. There is a public interest in not having all the wealth be concentrated and handed down continually to heirs. We’re not creating dynasties. The heirs will already have a leg up in inheriting a beach house in the first place. Why are we also giving them a leg up on taxes?

My opinion is invalid because I disagree with a theory taught in a "trust and estates or property law class."?

OK!

I didn’t say it’s invalid. But you said that line of thinking is “insane.” And it’s actually not insane. It’s a line of thinking that forms the basis for many property-related policies in our country. You may disagree or not like it, but there’s actual logic behind disincentivizing properties staying in one family lineage indefinitely.

I disagree with the logic because it balances on someone else's desire to have what I already have. That is insane. Bill has no right to Tom's house simply because Tom's house was given to him by his dad. You wouldn't be saying this about primary residences, so why about inherited residences?

It's just punitive.

[Anonymous]

Tom is welcome to his dad’s house and has a massive leg up because he didn’t have to pay for the house. Hes getting a better deal by having to pay a fraction of it in one time estate taxes, and then annually, should pay property taxes / maintenance / all the joys of home ownership. Tom can sell, to Bill, if he cant cough up the one time tax and he’d still be net positive. What is the issue here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tom is welcome to his dad’s house and has a massive leg up because he didn’t have to pay for the house. Hes getting a better deal by having to pay a fraction of it in one time estate taxes, and then annually, should pay property taxes / maintenance / all the joys of home ownership. Tom can sell, to Bill, if he cant cough up the one time tax and he’d still be net positive. What is the issue here?

Again, the 'leg up' shouldn't factor. Maybe Tom has ALS and Bill will live to 95 in great health. Life ain't fair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tom is welcome to his dad’s house and has a massive leg up because he didn’t have to pay for the house. Hes getting a better deal by having to pay a fraction of it in one time estate taxes, and then annually, should pay property taxes / maintenance / all the joys of home ownership. Tom can sell, to Bill, if he cant cough up the one time tax and he’d still be net positive. What is the issue here?

Again, the 'leg up' shouldn't factor. Maybe Tom has ALS and Bill will live to 95 in great health. Life ain't fair.

Um, isnt that all the more reason why if Tom wants, Tom with ALS should sell to Bill, get cash out of the house, and help support his life and ALS? I just do not understand why we should ignore the leg up and not treat it like a benefit. Im happy that Tom has this option- a lot of people in Tom’s position don’t have a beach house they could liquidate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tom is welcome to his dad’s house and has a massive leg up because he didn’t have to pay for the house. Hes getting a better deal by having to pay a fraction of it in one time estate taxes, and then annually, should pay property taxes / maintenance / all the joys of home ownership. Tom can sell, to Bill, if he cant cough up the one time tax and he’d still be net positive. What is the issue here?

Again, the 'leg up' shouldn't factor. Maybe Tom has ALS and Bill will live to 95 in great health. Life ain't fair.

Um, isnt that all the more reason why if Tom wants, Tom with ALS should sell to Bill, get cash out of the house, and help support his life and ALS? I just do not understand why we should ignore the leg up and not treat it like a benefit. Im happy that Tom has this option- a lot of people in Tom’s position don’t have a beach house they could liquidate

Because you can't measure benefits. Some people are born tall and handsome other are born short and fat. Should the tall and handsome pay more in taxes?

It's the luck of the draw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tom is welcome to his dad’s house and has a massive leg up because he didn’t have to pay for the house. Hes getting a better deal by having to pay a fraction of it in one time estate taxes, and then annually, should pay property taxes / maintenance / all the joys of home ownership. Tom can sell, to Bill, if he cant cough up the one time tax and he’d still be net positive. What is the issue here?

Again, the 'leg up' shouldn't factor. Maybe Tom has ALS and Bill will live to 95 in great health. Life ain't fair.

Um, isnt that all the more reason why if Tom wants, Tom with ALS should sell to Bill, get cash out of the house, and help support his life and ALS? I just do not understand why we should ignore the leg up and not treat it like a benefit. Im happy that Tom has this option- a lot of people in Tom’s position don’t have a beach house they could liquidate

Because you can't measure benefits. Some people are born tall and handsome other are born short and fat. Should the tall and handsome pay more in taxes?

It's the luck of the draw.

Yes, please, it is social justice. Tall people tell me what to do all the time.

[Anonymous]

The Boomers' parents grew up in the Great Depression (which, by comparison, makes the Great Recession laughable) and WW2. Boomers - far from coddled - did learn a good bit about frugality.

Michelle Singletary offers good lessons on how to save for things rather than spending tens of thousands on destination weddings, thousands on vacations, hundreds a week on restaurants, and daily $10 lattes.

My college kids will graduate without debt (we skipped a lot of vacations and dinners out to save for them), but they've had to work for almost all their own spending money.