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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think people are missing the point here. No one is forcing you out of your home. We are simply commenting its a lot harder for millenials now, and that we as a society shouldnt incentivize the elderly to stay in place with reduced property taxes, not incentivize the transfer of real estate through special taxes. Youve done a great job - and i dont think you expect or need preferential treatment to stay in your well earned home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well let’s start with global warming. Empty homes still have to be heated and cooled. Homes that sit empty for 50% if the year and not being inhabited by people who could live in that locale and shop at those stores.

If it’s in the middle of nowhere and there isn’t really a market outside of second homeowners there is less of an argument of economic harm. But in general I can’t believe you need someone to spell out for you that a house that is not being lived in by the owner or a tenant is a waste of a building.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think people are missing the point here. No one is forcing you out of your home. We are simply commenting its a lot harder for millenials now, and that we as a society shouldnt incentivize the elderly to stay in place with reduced property taxes, not incentivize the transfer of real estate through special taxes. Youve done a great job - and i dont think you expect or need preferential treatment to stay in your well earned home.

The PP had a point. Young people spending money on expensive rents in fun neighborhoods in urban areas are paying a price for their choice to avoid cheaper far out suburbs. They could get cheaper apartments on the red or orange lines in Silver Spring or PG County.

In Maryland, the Homestead tax cap benefits everyone who owns a house, not just the elderly.

[Anonymous]

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.

Yes, my own DS is in a very nice luxury apartment in a very nice area. My DH and I rented for years in some real dumps in order to save money to buy in the dreaded suburbs. We are still here. We are not inclined to help him with a down payment anytime soon. He seems pretty happy with his lifestyle and we feel that there is no urgent reason to really own a house anyway (and maybe there never will be). He is probably better off renting and enjoying his life. I think he was not so impressed with how much sacrifice we made to get where we did in life. If he changes how he operates we might be more inclined to help him. Just saying. And yes, we pay full taxes. No breaks for us.

[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 . . .

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.

You can call it stupid all you want, but it’s absolutely true. You hit an age where you can’t make decisions anymore.

For th record…I guarantee I am better off than you and own a SFH that has appreciated quite a bit. I guess I am younger than you as well.

However, unlike you I am actually planning before I am ancient to downsize and make life choices that my kids will appreciate before I too get paralyzed by indecision.

[Anonymous]

You can call it stupid all you want, but it’s absolutely true. You hit an age where you can’t make decisions anymore.

For th record…I guarantee I am better off than you and own a SFH that has appreciated quite a bit. I guess I am younger than you as well.

However, unlike you I am actually planning before I am ancient to downsize and make life choices that my kids will appreciate before I too get paralyzed by indecision.

You seem awfully sure about things. Just wait.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It’s a silly and unenforceable idea, anyway. No reason to even give it too much thought

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It’s a silly and unenforceable idea, anyway. No reason to even give it too much thought

Higher property taxes on second homes already existed. Look at Myrtle Beach. And there is an estate tax that has fluctuated over time depending on administration. So yes, this is very much an enforceable situation.

[Anonymous]

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.

Not to mention those homes tend to be farther from city centers which means farther from health care and oldz need doctors and surgeons and specialists and such. You want them driving more often? Or ambulances filling up the highways?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 . . .

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.

You can call it stupid all you want, but it’s absolutely true. You hit an age where you can’t make decisions anymore.

For th record…I guarantee I am better off than you and own a SFH that has appreciated quite a bit. I guess I am younger than you as well.

However, unlike you I am actually planning before I am ancient to downsize and make life choices that my kids will appreciate before I too get paralyzed by indecision.

I'm sure you will plan the PERFECT retirement, I mean look at you, so confident and a breath of fresh air.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think people are missing the point here. No one is forcing you out of your home. We are simply commenting its a lot harder for millenials now, and that we as a society shouldnt incentivize the elderly to stay in place with reduced property taxes, not incentivize the transfer of real estate through special taxes. Youve done a great job - and i dont think you expect or need preferential treatment to stay in your well earned home.

If that was OP’s point, she/he did a terrible job making it. OP seems to feel entitled to a nice big house in a nice neighborhood without even understanding the sacrifices necessary to get there and wants the older generation currently in that home to move out pronto.

[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.

Ohhh, so lets make section 8 inhabitants sweep the sidewalks and pick up dog sh*t, OK? I mean, they provide less value to society so they should even it up.

[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."

You missed the point. An Aldi paycheck won't provide that.

[Anonymous]

The only difference between being 25 in 1990 and being 25 in 2024 is the 25 year olds today have the internet to amplify their anger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 . . .

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.

You can call it stupid all you want, but it’s absolutely true. You hit an age where you can’t make decisions anymore.

For th record…I guarantee I am better off than you and own a SFH that has appreciated quite a bit. I guess I am younger than you as well.

However, unlike you I am actually planning before I am ancient to downsize and make life choices that my kids will appreciate before I too get paralyzed by indecision.

I'm sure you will plan the PERFECT retirement, I mean look at you, so confident and a breath of fresh air.

Thanks...glad you agree with me that you are in the camp that just didn't plan anything and now you are stuck. It's not that you proactively are where you want to be, but now you are frozen.