Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

It's the luck of the draw.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

I mean, neither can I and I'm 52. My dad retired from a fed gig after 20 years and got a pension equal to 75% of his last years salary, along with free healthcare for life. He unfortunately died 8 years later but my mom gets his pension until her death which isn't even on the horizon. She's getting somethin like 95K a year, every year, until she dies just off that. Another 4 grand a month in SS, house is paid, taxes are senior exempted, etc etc etc

Both my wife and I work full time (white collar professionals) and we will never have anything close to that.

Life aint fair. Sometimes timing matters.

Most people don't have pensions. Just career military and government workers.

Right, that's my point. In my grandfather's era everyone had a pension and wages were proportionately higher. My dad was born in '41 and most of his peers had pensions/retirement too.

My wife and I (both masters educated professionals) live frugally, invest heavily, sent kids to state schools, etc and will never get to point where our investments generate $15,000 a month in income.

It just the way life works. The later you get to the party the crappier the food selection gets.

Yeah but our current policies are like the crappy food is left but there’s still some nice platters in the back of the fridge and we’re packaging them in to go boxes for the people who arrived first. And those same people are telling the latecomers they should have planned better while walking out the door with their to go bags. It’s just obnoxious at a certain point.

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

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

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

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

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!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

I mean, neither can I and I'm 52. My dad retired from a fed gig after 20 years and got a pension equal to 75% of his last years salary, along with free healthcare for life. He unfortunately died 8 years later but my mom gets his pension until her death which isn't even on the horizon. She's getting somethin like 95K a year, every year, until she dies just off that. Another 4 grand a month in SS, house is paid, taxes are senior exempted, etc etc etc

Both my wife and I work full time (white collar professionals) and we will never have anything close to that.

Life aint fair. Sometimes timing matters.

Most people don't have pensions. Just career military and government workers.

Right, that's my point. In my grandfather's era everyone had a pension and wages were proportionately higher. My dad was born in '41 and most of his peers had pensions/retirement too.

My wife and I (both masters educated professionals) live frugally, invest heavily, sent kids to state schools, etc and will never get to point where our investments generate $15,000 a month in income.

It just the way life works. The later you get to the party the crappier the food selection gets.

Yeah but our current policies are like the crappy food is left but there’s still some nice platters in the back of the fridge and we’re packaging them in to go boxes for the people who arrived first. And those same people are telling the latecomers they should have planned better while walking out the door with their to go bags. It’s just obnoxious at a certain point.

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

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

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

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

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?

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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

This line of thought is insane.

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