Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It make zero sense to downsize for many.

My neighbor bought his 6,3000 house in 1975 for $150,000 irbid now worth 1.8 million.

With 500k exemption he would owe taxes in 1.15 million at capital gains rate and state tax be like 300k. Plus 120k realtor fee/moving costs. Then where would he go?

The house is only 2,100 sf per floor. He renovated main level to add huge master suite with bathroom. He rarely goes upstairs or downstairs.

He is already 85 and still perfect health. He does keep his house up, new roof, window painting, lawn service. He has lived there 50 years so has a guy for everything. He would lose that too if he moves

The better play is to put the home in a trust and let one family live and raise their kids in it full time. Grandpa either buys or rents a nice new construction condo.

Better play for whom? He sounds like he is happy in his home and can well afford the maintenance. Why does everyone think older people want to live in condos.

Anonymous wrote:It make zero sense to downsize for many.

My neighbor bought his 6,3000 house in 1975 for $150,000 irbid now worth 1.8 million.

With 500k exemption he would owe taxes in 1.15 million at capital gains rate and state tax be like 300k. Plus 120k realtor fee/moving costs. Then where would he go?

The house is only 2,100 sf per floor. He renovated main level to add huge master suite with bathroom. He rarely goes upstairs or downstairs.

He is already 85 and still perfect health. He does keep his house up, new roof, window painting, lawn service. He has lived there 50 years so has a guy for everything. He would lose that too if he moves

The better play is to put the home in a trust and let one family live and raise their kids in it full time. Grandpa either buys or rents a nice new construction condo.

Anonymous wrote:My parents, who are mid-70s, recently bought a 3000 sq ft house with a two car garage and a 1000 sq foot accessory dwelling. It is not for visiting kids or grandkids as everyone lives within an hours drive. They each have their own bedroom and both wanted their own "office" (they do not work). The truth is they don't get along very well and lead almost entirely separate lives, and my mom, in particular, wants a home large enough to be able to spend most of her day without interacting with my dad. They also conceal the fact that they are both basically organized hoarders by having a home large enough to store an enormous amount of stuff, but because it's neatly stored in organized boxes on custom shelves and everything is labeled, no one would call them a hoarder. Instead they'd ask my mom who she hired to do the organizer (the answer is no one, she did it all herself, she has OCD and this is perhaps the only positive aspect of it).

I would love if instead of my parents buying his home, they had spent time in therapy addressing their mental health issues and their relationship. I wish they were spending these years enjoying time with family (or, if it were possible, each other). They didn't. They have tons of money and can afford this house. So here we are. It is at least preferable to them being at each other's throats in a smaller home, or engaging in dangerous hoarding without the money and space to make it aesthetically pleasing. It's not environmentally conscious and it seems short-sighted to me, but it's not my life or my money and I'm content to stay out of it.

We are the only family who isn't local to them, and when we come visit, we will be asked to stay in a hotel, though my DD will be invite to spend the night for 1:1 time with my mom. So I guess there is that?

Probably because they can feel your disdain. This entire thread reeks of it. I'd say a lot of people need therapy.

You don't seem content to stay out of it, and if you were then you wouldn't care if you "were asked" to stay at a hotel. If you're so intent on "enjoying time with family," why aren't you staying with them when you visit?

My parents, who are mid-70s, recently bought a 3000 sq ft house with a two car garage and a 1000 sq foot accessory dwelling. It is not for visiting kids or grandkids as everyone lives within an hours drive. They each have their own bedroom and both wanted their own "office" (they do not work). The truth is they don't get along very well and lead almost entirely separate lives, and my mom, in particular, wants a home large enough to be able to spend most of her day without interacting with my dad. They also conceal the fact that they are both basically organized hoarders by having a home large enough to store an enormous amount of stuff, but because it's neatly stored in organized boxes on custom shelves and everything is labeled, no one would call them a hoarder. Instead they'd ask my mom who she hired to do the organizer (the answer is no one, she did it all herself, she has OCD and this is perhaps the only positive aspect of it).

I would love if instead of my parents buying his home, they had spent time in therapy addressing their mental health issues and their relationship. I wish they were spending these years enjoying time with family (or, if it were possible, each other). They didn't. They have tons of money and can afford this house. So here we are. It is at least preferable to them being at each other's throats in a smaller home, or engaging in dangerous hoarding without the money and space to make it aesthetically pleasing. It's not environmentally conscious and it seems short-sighted to me, but it's not my life or my money and I'm content to stay out of it.

We are the only family who isn't local to them, and when we come visit, we will be asked to stay in a hotel, though my DD will be invite to spend the night for 1:1 time with my mom. So I guess there is that?

Anonymous wrote:It make zero sense to downsize for many.

My neighbor bought his 6,3000 house in 1975 for $150,000 irbid now worth 1.8 million.

With 500k exemption he would owe taxes in 1.15 million at capital gains rate and state tax be like 300k. Plus 120k realtor fee/moving costs. Then where would he go?

The house is only 2,100 sf per floor. He renovated main level to add huge master suite with bathroom. He rarely goes upstairs or downstairs.

He is already 85 and still perfect health. He does keep his house up, new roof, window painting, lawn service. He has lived there 50 years so has a guy for everything. He would lose that too if he moves

NP - and when he dies, his heirs will get an adjusted basis in the house when they sell it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not 70 yet but I could see wanting space for my kids to come and comfortably stay with their partners and kids.

Be realistic. How often will this happen? How often do your kids want to come stay with you for multiple days? I love my parents but I have no interest in spending more than 2-3 days at their house because it's inconvenient not being in your own bed and kids not in their beds for more than few days unless we're on vacation, but grandma's house is not vacation. It'd be different if you have a summer house by the water but that's not what people are talking about here.

And it is much easier for parents to come stay with us instead of the other way around. I am not sacrificing vacation days to spend a week or two in suburban Maryland. My retired parents come see us. And this is the pattern I see among most of my friends and peers. The parents are the ones who visit the kids and grandkids.

I'm seeing fantasies on this thread. Not reality. Rattling around a great big empty house with multiple bedrooms for most of the year just so that your kids can have their own room over Thanksgiving seems silly to me.

NP who provided the list.

I have visitors… friends/family/kids 2x a month. Except when I’m travel to visit them.

Are you an introvert?

People can always come up with the stories and anecdotes to justify their thinkings, especially on the internet. Do what you want to do and certainly there must be some families that live like this. But at the same time let's not pretend this is a normal lifestyle for most retired/senior people even with large families.

I think it’s normal if you’re Italian or Hispanic or other family oriented cultures.

I think if you’re a WASP who left your small town never to look back and think that all gathering require top shelf liquor, expensive wine and caterers this world seems wildly odd. (Or if you’re an introvert)

No matter the size or composition of the gathering, top shelf liquor is important. Life's too short to drink sh!tty booze. Plus, if you're drinking rotgut, you just want the alcohol to get a buzz/drink, which is . . . not great.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

The 20yo do not appreciate top shelf and you probably think grey goose is top shelf, that’s middle btw.

I know nothing about vodka. It's booze for people who don't like booze.

Regardless, I stand by what I said.

Anonymous wrote:

our kids and grandkids love visiting the "estate" throughout the year

Is it bigger than their home? More expensive? I would want to pay-it-forward instead, to assure that a growing family had the more spacious home.
Imho, it just doesn't seem right to live the way you do as a retiree. Why not gift more money to them to help with their housing?
- signed, a retiree myself

This isn't a matter of right or wrong, you ninny. You prefer to live a different way. That's it. Why not leave it at that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No longer the appropriate time of life to be hosting family events, not on a regular basis. Pass the baton, and the control, to the next generation. They should be living in the bigger houses. If they have a family, they need the bigger homes

I'm thisl poster. I'm 60 with married kids and grandchildren.

At 60, you are not a boomer. If you or your male peers were not eligible for the Vietnam war draft, you are not a boomer. Dealing with the draft was the factor that coalesced the boomer generation. If you were too young for the draft, you just are not a boomer.

Wrong. The baby boomer generation was 1946 to 1964. The defining feature was being born during the massive population spike immediately following WWII.

I was a child in the 60s. Anyone who had to face the draft or had same age peers facing the draft will tell you that people too young for the draft had a completely different experience in life. The Vietnam war draft was the defining shared experience of the boomers. If you didn’t share it, you are not a boomer, no matter what year you were born.

Good grief. The name "Boomer" comes from "baby boom." That's the determinative factor. It's not "Namer."

You do know that the baby boom was caused by soldiers returning from WWII, right? And those babies were the ones who were eligible for the Vietnam War draft when they turned 18.

There weren’t a lot of soldiers just coming back from WWII by the late 50s and early 60s, and kids born in those years are also the ones who turned 18 after the draft had ended.

Talk to some boomers who turned 18 before the draft had ended. They will tell you that their experiences were very different from those of people who turned 18 after that.

Well, no kidding. It's a nearly 20-year age gap. My experiences as an early Gen Xer are very different from those of late Gen Xers, who have more in common with millennials. But we're all still Gen X.

You're position is, in a nutshell, "I don't agree with when the Boomer generation ends, and I will try to convince everyone that I am right. Endlessly, and no matter how little it has to do with the actual discussion people are having." You can stop now. It's annoying.

20 years ago.my in-laws moved from a decent sized 4 bedroom house to a much larger new build house. They were in their 60s. They customized it how they liked, etc.

Whenever you talked to them at that time, it was all about retirement. IMO, they were living their lives in the future and retirement was their big reward for working in their careers. Their house was spartan with old furniture but they bought all new for the new house, that kind of thing.

The big house was not for the family as they moved out of state and people may visit every other year or so.

I'm their age now and retired myself. I have a different mindset than they did. My husband and I traveled and have spent money on our house. We don't plan to move. I did not think of retirement as a time of big rewards, but I think a lot of people do: that will be the time they can finally enjoy themselves. I think the big house reflects that.

It make zero sense to downsize for many.

My neighbor bought his 6,3000 house in 1975 for $150,000 irbid now worth 1.8 million.

With 500k exemption he would owe taxes in 1.15 million at capital gains rate and state tax be like 300k. Plus 120k realtor fee/moving costs. Then where would he go?

The house is only 2,100 sf per floor. He renovated main level to add huge master suite with bathroom. He rarely goes upstairs or downstairs.

He is already 85 and still perfect health. He does keep his house up, new roof, window painting, lawn service. He has lived there 50 years so has a guy for everything. He would lose that too if he moves

This. If he keeps the house the heirs inherit it at the cost basis on day of death (so inheritance is much higher with no taxes). Inheritance will be much more. Also the realtor and moving costs are a factor.

Anonymous wrote:

our kids and grandkids love visiting the "estate" throughout the year

Is it bigger than their home? More expensive? I would want to pay-it-forward instead, to assure that a growing family had the more spacious home.
Imho, it just doesn't seem right to live the way you do as a retiree. Why not gift more money to them to help with their housing?
- signed, a retiree myself

We have gifted them plenty of $$ to get a head start in life - free educations, home down payments, college fund for next gens, etc. We are not cheating them in any way and the property continues to appreciate (comes with sub dividable acreage) so they will all benefit handsomely after we are gone. We have always planned it this way - to keep the family together so to speak and not become "empty nesters" after kids move on. Being an empty nester represents a depressing position. The memories and bonds that we continue to build are priceless. BTW, we are an ethnic family, with a different mindset vs. the traditional "American family".

A lot of people have the dream of having the entire family stay over during Christmas and other holidays. The big house is literally for that every year.

I have neighbors with a pool and one of their adult kids and their son is over splashing in the pool every weekend during the summer. For people without beach houses, this is their family time. So I get it.

It make zero sense to downsize for many.

My neighbor bought his 6,3000 house in 1975 for $150,000 irbid now worth 1.8 million.

With 500k exemption he would owe taxes in 1.15 million at capital gains rate and state tax be like 300k. Plus 120k realtor fee/moving costs. Then where would he go?

The house is only 2,100 sf per floor. He renovated main level to add huge master suite with bathroom. He rarely goes upstairs or downstairs.

He is already 85 and still perfect health. He does keep his house up, new roof, window painting, lawn service. He has lived there 50 years so has a guy for everything. He would lose that too if he moves

Anonymous wrote:My dad says he’s too good to live in a smaller house at his age. He’s 70 and the house is 6000 sq ft.

I think this is a common attitude.

He does talk about selling to anyone but me and moving to The Villages sometimes but I don’t think he can afford it so that’s just a dream.

Isn’t his house paid off?

How much is the villages?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No longer the appropriate time of life to be hosting family events, not on a regular basis. Pass the baton, and the control, to the next generation. They should be living in the bigger houses. If they have a family, they need the bigger homes

I'm thisl poster. I'm 60 with married kids and grandchildren.

At 60, you are not a boomer. If you or your male peers were not eligible for the Vietnam war draft, you are not a boomer. Dealing with the draft was the factor that coalesced the boomer generation. If you were too young for the draft, you just are not a boomer.

Wrong. The baby boomer generation was 1946 to 1964. The defining feature was being born during the massive population spike immediately following WWII.

I was a child in the 60s. Anyone who had to face the draft or had same age peers facing the draft will tell you that people too young for the draft had a completely different experience in life. The Vietnam war draft was the defining shared experience of the boomers. If you didn’t share it, you are not a boomer, no matter what year you were born.

Good grief. The name "Boomer" comes from "baby boom." That's the determinative factor. It's not "Namer."

You do know that the baby boom was caused by soldiers returning from WWII, right? And those babies were the ones who were eligible for the Vietnam War draft when they turned 18.

There weren’t a lot of soldiers just coming back from WWII by the late 50s and early 60s, and kids born in those years are also the ones who turned 18 after the draft had ended.

Talk to some boomers who turned 18 before the draft had ended. They will tell you that their experiences were very different from those of people who turned 18 after that.

The draft ended in January 1973, so that would be anyone born in 1955 or later.
No. People born in 1955-64 are boomers.