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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Got it...so you support my general proposition...that you didn't plan for anything and now you are stuck.

[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."

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

What does Aldi have to do with it? The equivalent paycheck 25 or 50 years ago was also mediocre.

[Anonymous]

Circling back on this topic, I found this to be an enlightening read. Go through the whole thread on Twitter and you’ll understand why younger American generations are at a very distinct disadvantage to Boomers:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Circling back on this topic, I found this to be an enlightening read. Go through the whole thread on Twitter and you’ll understand why younger American generations are at a very distinct disadvantage to Boomers:

Angry Gen Zs, eh?

Don't worry. Your turn will come. Just work hard and be sensible.

[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.

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.

Are you comparing the value of human beings to a building?

Omg this was not the brilliant point you think you are making.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Circling back on this topic, I found this to be an enlightening read. Go through the whole thread on Twitter and you’ll understand why younger American generations are at a very distinct disadvantage to Boomers:

Who needs facts and actual statistics when you can have anecdotes from Boomers who had to walk up hill both ways in the snow!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Circling back on this topic, I found this to be an enlightening read. Go through the whole thread on Twitter and you’ll understand why younger American generations are at a very distinct disadvantage to Boomers:

Who needs facts and actual statistics when you can have anecdotes from Boomers who had to walk up hill both ways in the snow!

Boomers had Vietnam, the draft, double digit interest rates, a sluggish job market in the 1970s, stagflation, massive corporate layoffs in the late 80s and early 90s, late 80s housing crash plus the 2008 housing crash. Many Boomers grew up /live in decaying towns and smaller cities that never really recovered from industrial decline and offshoring.

Not a Boomer but some of you with a twist in your panties about Boomers need to get over it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Circling back on this topic, I found this to be an enlightening read. Go through the whole thread on Twitter and you’ll understand why younger American generations are at a very distinct disadvantage to Boomers:

Who needs facts and actual statistics when you can have anecdotes from Boomers who had to walk up hill both ways in the snow!

Facts and statistics? Leviticus?

[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.

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.

No they don't. You winterize them. Cut off the water and drain the pipes. Unplug the fridge and open the door, dump a pint of antifreeze down each drain and it can sit indefinitely with no HVAC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Circling back on this topic, I found this to be an enlightening read. Go through the whole thread on Twitter and you’ll understand why younger American generations are at a very distinct disadvantage to Boomers:

Who needs facts and actual statistics when you can have anecdotes from Boomers who had to walk up hill both ways in the snow!

Boomers had Vietnam, the draft, double digit interest rates, a sluggish job market in the 1970s, stagflation, massive corporate layoffs in the late 80s and early 90s, late 80s housing crash plus the 2008 housing crash. Many Boomers grew up /live in decaying towns and smaller cities that never really recovered from industrial decline and offshoring.

Not a Boomer but some of you with a twist in your panties about Boomers need to get over it.

My boomer parents' house did not increase in value in 15 years in NJ, and they sold it at a loss in 2001. Values didn't recover in the neighborhood from mid to late 80s peaks until the late 2010s.

[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.

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.

Is a winter coat a waste of a coat May- November?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Circling back on this topic, I found this to be an enlightening read. Go through the whole thread on Twitter and you’ll understand why younger American generations are at a very distinct disadvantage to Boomers:

Who needs facts and actual statistics when you can have anecdotes from Boomers who had to walk up hill both ways in the snow!

Boomers had Vietnam, the draft, double digit interest rates, a sluggish job market in the 1970s, stagflation, massive corporate layoffs in the late 80s and early 90s, late 80s housing crash plus the 2008 housing crash. Many Boomers grew up /live in decaying towns and smaller cities that never really recovered from industrial decline and offshoring.

Not a Boomer but some of you with a twist in your panties about Boomers need to get over it.

These are all good points. The 1970s and 1980s were economically disastrous. Mortgage rates were as high as 13% in the late 1970s/early 1980s, peaking at something like 16% in the early 1980s.

Don't kid yourself, many boomers felt economically pinched too as they started their own families, with stagflation, unemployment, and high mortgages on small houses you would probably turn your nose up at. The only way many boomer families made it was for the wife to enter the workforce and that was a social sea-change (for the good imo).

Yes, today many boomers feel economically comfortable with their paid-off mortgages and dwindling family expenses, as op points out with the green eyes of jealousy. But it wasn't always like that.

Also, you'll inherit my housing equity eventually. Maybe in your sixties, which is the age (younger end) many of the boomers you despise finally became economically comfortable with their mortgages and smaller family expenses. So there's that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Is a winter coat a waste of a coat May- November?

DP. A winter coat is necessary. A second home, not so much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stop your whining and get a therapist to help you deal with your very transparent issues with your parents.

NP. My parents aren’t Boomers but I legitimately don’t see how people don’t understand why Millrennials/Gen Z/Gen Alpha feel enraged that no matter how hard they work they will never have the ability to build wealth the way previous generations did.

As usual Gen X is left out. But no big deal.

I think you might protest too much. The ten year S&P return has averaged more ver 15%. As recently as two years ago you could lock in a 30 year three percent mortgage. The millennials have certainly had the chance to save and build wealth.

[Anonymous]

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.

As usual Gen X is left out. But no big deal.

I think you might protest too much. The ten year S&P return has averaged more ver 15%. As recently as two years ago you could lock in a 30 year three percent mortgage. The millennials have certainly had the chance to save and build wealth.

Too busy figuring out how to "adult."