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: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.

If Tom is using it as a primary residence then he will pay normal taxes. But if Tom already has a primary residence and then through birth luck inherits a beach house, he should pay higher taxes because vacation homes that sit empty provide less value to society than providing primary residences for more people. If Tom decides to rent it out (creating economic activity and providing use to others) then he gets to make money and deduct certain expenses on his taxes.

But I inherited so it’s mine and you can’t extra tax me is not a good argument for macro level policy.

[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 . . .

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.

Good lord is this stupid. You are actually criticizing how we were able to afford things (BY NOT CONTINUALLY BUYING NEW CRAP, Lol), but now calling it "decision paralysis." Yeah, we decided we don't need new stuff all the time- new cars, new houses, whatever. That's not a fault. Try it, and you too can have more money.

Maybe boomers don't need to downsize, and BTW, these over 55s are huge, larger than most SFHs. We don't need that.

[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.

So you want boomers to give up tens of thousands of $ just to help out an angry millennial ever haven’t met? Do you think this is realistic?

[Anonymous]

Some, not all, millennials want that perfect, large house right out of the gate. The kitchen is dated? Lazy boomers! Also, hard pass.

More realistic is to start small (condo or starter house) and move up the property ladder.

Then find a forever home that’s a fixer-upper and fix up the necessary things but don’t buy into all the marketing and real estate bs about how you need the perfect kitchen before you move in.

We fixed up a house with two small kids and both of us working full time. Now we have an objectively “nice” house with lots of memories. I’m not going to downsize into a more expensive, smaller place just because OP is afraid of a little elbow grease.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!!

Wait, you're saying that people vote in their own interests?

Really?

When did this start?!?!?!

[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

I thought you wanted to ban suburbs and SFHs so we can all live in dense cities?

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

I highlighted it because it's what my mother recives from my dad's fed pension and SS.

It's not true that Americans have never had it this good. My grandfather bought a house, a lake house, always had two cars, raised three kids all through college with no debt and did it on a factory workers salary. And he had a fully funded 35 year retirement.

You're not doing that on an Aldi paycheck today.

$15k per month is $180k per year. If you are two "masters educated professionals," let's assume that you will each get $40k in social security benefits, for a total of $80k. That leaves $100k. If you use the 4% withdrawal method, you need an investment account of $2.5m to generate that amount. It's more than likely that a masters educated professional will have a retirement account with $1.25m in it after 30+ years of working and "investing heavily."

[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.

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.

I highlighted it because it's what my mother recives from my dad's fed pension and SS.

It's not true that Americans have never had it this good. My grandfather bought a house, a lake house, always had two cars, raised three kids all through college with no debt and did it on a factory workers salary. And he had a fully funded 35 year retirement.

You're not doing that on an Aldi paycheck today.

$15k per month is $180k per year. If you are two "masters educated professionals," let's assume that you will each get $40k in social security benefits, for a total of $80k. That leaves $100k. If you use the 4% withdrawal method, you need an investment account of $2.5m to generate that amount. It's more than likely that a masters educated professional will have a retirement account with $1.25m in it after 30+ years of working and "investing heavily."

Are we seriously trying to use the “masters educated professional” to explain why its everything is FINE and millenials just need to shut up???

[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.

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.

I highlighted it because it's what my mother recives from my dad's fed pension and SS.

It's not true that Americans have never had it this good. My grandfather bought a house, a lake house, always had two cars, raised three kids all through college with no debt and did it on a factory workers salary. And he had a fully funded 35 year retirement.

You're not doing that on an Aldi paycheck today.

$15k per month is $180k per year. If you are two "masters educated professionals," let's assume that you will each get $40k in social security benefits, for a total of $80k. That leaves $100k. If you use the 4% withdrawal method, you need an investment account of $2.5m to generate that amount. It's more than likely that a masters educated professional will have a retirement account with $1.25m in it after 30+ years of working and "investing heavily."

Are we seriously trying to use the “masters educated professional” to explain why its everything is FINE and millenials just need to shut up???

Not at all. But the PP should just shut up. He is a chicken little with respect to his own personal fiances, and either not being truthful or is really bad at math. Dealer's choice.

[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.

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.

I highlighted it because it's what my mother recives from my dad's fed pension and SS.

It's not true that Americans have never had it this good. My grandfather bought a house, a lake house, always had two cars, raised three kids all through college with no debt and did it on a factory workers salary. And he had a fully funded 35 year retirement.

You're not doing that on an Aldi paycheck today.

$15k per month is $180k per year. If you are two "masters educated professionals," let's assume that you will each get $40k in social security benefits, for a total of $80k. That leaves $100k. If you use the 4% withdrawal method, you need an investment account of $2.5m to generate that amount. It's more than likely that a masters educated professional will have a retirement account with $1.25m in it after 30+ years of working and "investing heavily."

Are we seriously trying to use the “masters educated professional” to explain why its everything is FINE and millenials just need to shut up???

Yes, because complaining millennial can get a masters degree or do something else that will make them more marketable for higher paying jobs. Expenses are not going to meet your desired level of educational and/or skill achievement. Past generations knew this so we inconvenienced ourselves by going to school in the evenings after work, taking training courses, doing things that were not fun but life is more than pursuing interests and hobbies

[Anonymous]

Cry some more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If Tom is using it as a primary residence then he will pay normal taxes. But if Tom already has a primary residence and then through birth luck inherits a beach house, he should pay higher taxes because vacation homes that sit empty provide less value to society than providing primary residences for more people. If Tom decides to rent it out (creating economic activity and providing use to others) then he gets to make money and deduct certain expenses on his taxes.

But I inherited so it’s mine and you can’t extra tax me is not a good argument for macro level policy.

You haven't described why people having second homes or vacation homes is bad for the country or its economy. Why is someone owning a beach house in a vacation community a problem? If you're concerned about workforce housing for service employees, that is a zoning and development issue.

[Anonymous]

OP must hate people like me... single middle-aged professional with a 3,000 square foot SFH and two bedrooms combined for a bigger master suite. I should be forced into a miserable condo with shared walls and no garage for the good of the world. That's no different than some old person holding onto their house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP must hate people like me... single middle-aged professional with a 3,000 square foot SFH and two bedrooms combined for a bigger master suite. I should be forced into a miserable condo with shared walls and no garage for the good of the world. That's no different than some old person holding onto their house.

Yes, you are the enemy! Make way for the more deserving with two kids and two cars!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some, not all, millennials want that perfect, large house right out of the gate. The kitchen is dated? Lazy boomers! Also, hard pass.

More realistic is to start small (condo or starter house) and move up the property ladder.

Then find a forever home that’s a fixer-upper and fix up the necessary things but don’t buy into all the marketing and real estate bs about how you need the perfect kitchen before you move in.

We fixed up a house with two small kids and both of us working full time. Now we have an objectively “nice” house with lots of memories. I’m not going to downsize into a more expensive, smaller place just because OP is afraid of a little elbow grease.

+1

Tale end of the Boomer generation here. Lived in a one bedroom, basement apartment in crummy neighborhood with 2 roommates right out of college for several years to save money to go to grad school.

After grad school, DH and I saved until we could afford to buy into a tenancy in common that we then converted to 2 condos with our co-owners. Took a huge risk on a charming but very dated flat in a supposedly up and coming neighborhood. Interest rate for mortgage was 8%. When sold, made strong profit thanks to the fact that a condo was more valuable than a TIC.

Moved to 2000 square foot, 4 bedroom house in a very desirable neighborhood that needed significant work. Lived in house for almost 20 years before replacing old kitchen with an Ikea kitchen. Bathrooms still need to be remodeled. Raised 3 kids in the house who are now out of college. House, or more precisely, the lot the house is on, is now worth at least 3 times what we paid for it.

Meanwhile I watch my nieces and nephews in their late 20s, as well as my own children to a certain extent, complain about how they will never be able to afford a house. Yet they rent in expensive neighborhoods, generally don't have roommates, eat dinner out almost every night, take expensive vacations, buy expensive clothes and yes, drink those $$$ lattes.

Sorry OP but DH and I took took risks and sacrificed all these years to reach the point and we have no plans to downsize.