After 33 years and four children, Baby Boomers Marta and Octavian Dragos say they feel trapped in what was once their dream home in El Cerrito, California.
Both over 70, the Dragos are empty nesters, and like many of their generation, they’re trying to figure out how to downsize from their 3,000-square-foot, five-bedroom home.
“We are here in a huge house with no family nearby, trying to make a wise decision, both financially and for our well-being,” said Dragos, a retired teacher.
But selling and downsizing isn’t easy, appealing or even financially advantageous for many homeowners like the Dragos family.
Many Boomers whose homes have surged in value now face massive capital gains tax bills when they sell. This is a kind of tax on the profit you make when selling an investment or an asset, like a home, that has increased in value.
Plus, smaller homes or apartments in the neighborhoods they’ve come to love are rare. And with current prices and mortgage rates so high, there is often a negligible cost difference between their current home and a smaller one.
You must log in or register to comment.
Article is lying by omission
The only way they pay cap gains is if this is a second house
Also must be nice to be able to afford a 3000 sq ft home on a retired teachers salary…fuck these ppl honestly.
The rich always find someway to divide the working class and they fall for it every time.
The only way they pay cap gains is if this is a second house
Not the only way. There are several different ways you might have to pay cap gains on a home that isn’t a second home.
But for the article its likely this way they have to pay:
“Both the IRS and FTB provide a capital gains tax break for home sellers who meet certain conditions. The maximum amount of capital gain that can be excluded is $250,000 for single filers or $500,000 for a married couple filing jointly.” source
From OPs article:
“The taxable gain of $1.4 million at 20% would mean those homeowners are facing a $280,000 tax bill. In a state like California with additional tax, the overall payment would be over $450,000.”
They bought the house at $100k, and are walking away after taxes with $1.55m. Boo hoo? They’re saying they get a big tax bill because of inflation, but they’re also able to sell their house for 19x what they bought if for for similar reasons. If they want to sell it to me for $600k and have zero cap gains taxes, I’ll take them up on that offer.
Such a sad story. We should start a Go Fund Me!
Here’s what I will contribute
^^^🎻
It’s truly an insane housing market, but can they even afford to downsize? I have no way of judging the cost there, but certainly here there is less than $450k difference between a typical house and a 2-3 bedroom condo. Since ts the land that scarce, smaller places go up in value along with the larger, so you never know.
In a much lower cost of living area, when my Mom downsized from the big house I grew up in, she both took a sizeable gain and yet still had to take a mortgage to buy a 2 bedroom condo to replace it
They also spent years reaping the lower taxes from prop 13 which saw their property taxes only raise by a max of 2% per year.
This is nonsense. The tax-free allowance is massive and they’re only required to pay tax on all the free money, nothing they actually earned.
If there was 100% capital gains tax on all domestic property, we wouldn’t have all that free money pushing up the cost of housing for everyone.
Most homeowners don’t have to pay capital gains on their home when they sell. Thanks to tax legislation from the ’90s, a gain of up to $250,000 for a single tax filer or $500,000 for a couple filing jointly is exempt from tax. That’s providing the sale is of the homeowner’s primary residence and that they meet other requirements such as living in the property for two of the past five years.
Not massive enough for how US home prices have ballooned. Even from 2016-2023, it looks like housing in El Cerrito have almost doubled from $750,000 to $1.1 million. If they bought 40 years ago, the gains would be even larger. FRED says housing prices nationally have 3x’d since 1970, which doesn’t even account for localized price growth.
It is very easy to have a capital gain above $500k these days.
Definition of tax: https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/taxes/selling-home-capital-gains-tax
It’s free money.
So assuming their house is worth $1M, they get $500k tax free and pay 14% on the remaining $500k, or $70k which comes out to 7% of the sale price. $930,000 doesn’t seem like too bad of a haul.
I could be wrong, but “capital gains” to me means only on the increase in value. So if they bought the house for $200k, they would be paying tax only on the $300k.
If you can’t afford to sell your house lease it out and start transferring the equity to your kids as fast as you can without taking too big a hit on inheritance tax. Use the income to buy a smaller house in a less posh neighborhood.
And thus the cycle of nobody buying homes to live in continues.
Perhaps the real problem is here:
https://www.amortization.org/inflation/amount.php?year=1997&amount=250000
If the $250k exclusion was indexed for inflation, it would be nearly $500k now. I think it’s dumb that all tax-related things aren’t indexed for inflation. But I know why: if they did, then the forecasts on how much the exclusion would cost the Treasury would have been higher, and it never would have passed Newt Gingrich’s House
Guess they are using the alternate definition of trapped. They of course could rent the house and use the rent money to rent/buy thier new place and probably have a little profit at the same time.
Ah yes, more landlords, that’s what society really needs!
They are suggesting that they rent out the empty rooms.
The only thing that really changes is issues are more likely to be dealt with quickly since they might affect the landlord as much as the tenant.
They’re happy to say that younger folks should be okay with it, but as soon as they’re faced with it, it’s suddenly a tragedy?
Horse shit. Fuck anyone gaslighting the value of housing security. I hope their home value turns to dust.
Most homeowners don’t have to pay capital gains on their home when they sell. Thanks to tax legislation from the ’90s, a gain of up to $250,000 for a single tax filer or $500,000 for a couple filing jointly is exempt from tax. That’s providing the sale is of the homeowner’s primary residence and that they meet other requirements such as living in the property for two of the past five years.
That means if a couple bought a median priced home in 1987 for $100,000 and they’ve lived there as their primary residence and are selling it today for $550,000, the $450,000 gain from that investment is not taxed because it falls under the $500,000 exclusion to capital gains taxes.
However, if those same $100,000 homebuyers lived for 37 years in an area that has seen enormous growth in home values — as is the case for many parts of California — and their home now sells for $2 million dollars, that’s nearly $1.9 million in profit, of which only $500,000 is excluded from taxes.
Oh, how horrible. /s
Haha, I mean I get it… Giving away money to uncle sam sucks but I agree with your sentiment. They are coming out ahead, that house was an investment that is paying dividends. I am hoping to have that problem some day!
Contributing financially to the democratic society in which you spent the entire time of gaining monetary value able to vote which enabled the increase in value of your property? That’s the thing here, this isn’t throwing money away, and it isn’t imposed without your say. Taxes aren’t fun, and we don’t always like where they go, but as adults we should be able to respect them. They’re part of how our society functions and a necessary component of many nice things we need in order to prosper.
This long time anti tax attitude in this country is part of what destroyed our infrastructure, ruined our regulatory bodies, and contributed to our massive wealth gap.
To be fair, it wasn’t the attitude that destroyed the infrastructure. Despite people’s attitude toward taxes, they still paid. The problem is precisely that they don’t like where that money is going. In most cases, their taxes are just funding a trust fund baby’s extra paycheck while they sit in office and neglect their duties while discussing divisive politics to distract from the fact that they are robbing the American people. A lot of people aren’t against the idea of paying taxes, but rather America’s inability to appropriately spend money on the common good.
That attitude that the majority of taxes go to paying politicians is part of the issue. Yeah politicians suck and many are overpaid. The military is too. You me and everyone else knows these will be cut after infrastructure and welfare. Fighting for tax cuts then becomes “I don’t want to pay for infrastructure or welfare”. And seriously look at anti tax sentiments, they’re often anti welfare or anti government assistance.
If it was just a problem of paying more taxes then the argument would be bullshit. The main problem is buried at the end of the article:
A homeowner who keeps all the profit of a home that sells for $500,000, for example, may find that a condo in their same area, where they can age in place, is $450,000. After calculating realtor fees and closing costs, the profit hardly covers the new purchase, let alone provides any extra income for retirement.
This is the real reason they are not moving. They would be stepping backwards financially instead of stepping forward.
Their home is worth 2mil. They absolutely would not be stepping backward.
It’s a ridiculous scenario considering the real value of their home. They might as well have invented a scenario where these people only get $100k for their 3000sqft, 5 bedroom home and then have to pay $2M for a one bedroom condo on the bad side of town.
Condos generally aren’t much cheaper than houses. They would have the same issue if their region’s real estate was half as expensive. They would have had this problem 10, 20, 30 years ago if they were retiring. If you sell a house in an expensive area and want money left over, you either have to choose a shittier house/apartment to live, or a cheaper area.
Feels like the crux of this whole thing is that housing shouldn’t be an investment.
How could it be changed so it wouldn’t be?
Land is mostly a set resource with new developments and cities slowing. Home development follows land and while there’s been a boom, overall it’s been slowing. As there are more people, demand for housing increases.
All of this drives cost of homes up. So the longer you are in a home, the more it and/or the land it worth. Usually outpacing inflation. So when you sell, it’s worth more. It’s an investment by default even for those people who own 1 normal-sized single family home. It was an investment even when housing prices were reasonable decades ago.
It could be changed to penalize or disincentivize people from owning multiple homes through taxes. Like maybe tax the shit out of anyone that owns more than two in order to allow the middle class the chance to purchase a rental property but stop the ultra wealthy from from buying up entire neighborhoods.
Public housing would be a step in the right direction
We’ve had that in the US and they’re referred to as “the projects.”
What’s your point?
How could it be changed so it wouldn’t be?
I watched a video a while back that talks about how in Tokyo housing is seen as more of a consumer good than an investment, and explains why:
Interesting. So there’s 2 main reasons and 1 knock-on effect on why Tokyo (not Japan, just Tokyo) has affordable housing.
- They build a LOT of housing. Tons of dense housing which most other countries don’t match.
- 55% inheritance tax, no exemption. Meaning generational accrual of wealth from houses can’t happen.
The first one is achievable nearly everywhere and would be quite popular. Except with those who already own homes. Building high-density housing will lower housing prices for those nearby. The video covers this well.
The second isn’t going to work in the US. Homes are the #1 generational wealth is accrued and how people rise in economic standing. From paycheck-dependent to stable, etc. Trying to take that away without some other way to build wealth and especially without a national retirement system is going to be deeply unpopular.
Another aspect I found very interesting: Tokyo demolishes and rebuilds every house on average every 30 years. That’s wild to me. They build for safety but not longevity. No one wants a pre-owned house. Couple this with the inheritance tax and I imagine most older people will just sell their homes or pass down only a small amount. Japan’s Public Pension System makes this feasible as well and without that I can’t see this becoming viable in America.
I also wonder how wasteful that kind of demolition ends up being.
Extremely wasteful - and that’s to say nothing of the obvious climate impacts from said waste. It’s one hell of a drawback to what I would otherwise describe as a system that works pretty well.
Everytime people talk about “the market” i realize its become a religion. The market doesnt magically do shit. The market doesnt just happen. We can make the market do any damn thing we choose because the market is actually…people.
This comment is essentially commodity fetishism ELI5’d and I love it
A-fucking-men.
“The market” sets wages. My ass, the market is Billybob greedy asshat saying “I won’t pay more than this.” Then Timmyjoe fuckwit says “well the market has spoken, it would be stupid of me to pay more when Billybob is only paying x”
And for you theorists out there “supply of labor will affect wages” let me introduce you to the new excuse: “No OnE wAnTs To WoRk AnYmOrE!” Can’t hire at the shit wage that’s out there? Just complain no one wants to work!
Good luck changing that. Housing has been a promised vehicle for wealth growth to multiple generations.
… What’s the issue?
They paid for the next place, including fees, and still have $50k in their pocket? How greedy does someone need to be, exactly, before we consider the behavior repugnant?
The issue is that they sold a large home and bought a small home and had very little money left over. It doesn’t make financial political sense to do that. They might as well stay where they are. There is little incentive to downsize.
Part of the solution to the housing crisis is solving that incentive problem.
Aww, poor them. They only had enough left over to pay fully for their next place and pocket $50k.
There is little incentive to downsize.
As long as you ignore property taxes and maintenance costs. Which normal people don’t ignore.
Maintenance costs are probably fairly minimal given how little wear and tear happens in an empty nest. And property taxes for elderly folks are usually frozen or nearly frozen in place - meaning the next buyer will be paying a much higher tax on the same house because they won’t qualify for those exemptions.
It seems like you don’t own a home, so I’m not sure there’s much point in continuing this conversation.
To the contrary - I own a large home in an urban area and it is filled with my children. But we don’t have to have a conversation - I was only pointing out the flaws in your logic. My tax bill will be $12k this year while my elderly next door neighbor’s will be a fraction of that. Our homes are identical (3k sqft over 3 floors). She’s not leaving because it would make little financial sense to do so. This is quite common.
The have their new property paid for and also have a much smaller property tax bill and lower maintenance costs. There’s still plenty of incentive to downsize.
Paying taxes on profit might hurt a little, but it’s a good problem to have.
What? They would have a much bigger property tax bill
If their smaller new house is worth less than their original the property tax bill will be less. This is one of the incentives to downsizing.
That’s not how property taxes work in California. They’re likely paying way less than they would be if they bought a new house, even if it was smaller
I think the issue is that with mortgage prices and the incredible costs of homes in California, capital gains tax comes into play for them when the vast majority of homeowners never even consider it.
So you have people with a large single family home wanting to sell and move into a small single family home (1-2bed) or even a condo and they end up with no benefit from doing so and potentially even an expensive mortgage. Essentially they are selling an Escalade to get a Civic and breaking even, which seems odd.
I think the capital gains tax exception should be expanded to be waived for single family homes under XXXX sq ft, with the above stipulations (living in the home continuously). It’s not these people’s fault their neighborhood shot up in price outpacing regulations meant to protect normal home owners.
Their only real out in this situation is to move away from where they’ve lived their whole lives.
think the capital gains tax exception
Nope. No exceptions. You made money for doing no work, you pay taxes on that money. Plain and simple. Cap Gains tax rates are already absurdly low, so frankly anybody asking for a further reduced rate or exception is already a greedy pig not worth listening to.
I see you’ve never sold a house. If you do, have fun losing 15% of that value. The only way to prevent that is for your house to not accrue any value while you lived in it.
You can actually deduct the cost of any improvements you’ve made to the home. You can’t do much about inflation costs, but are you really arguing that it’s bad to only receive 85% of free money rather than 0% by not selling?
Except you aren’t just selling. You also have to buy. And if from the tax and high housing prices it’s a wash to downsize, there’s not nearly the incentive to.
Cry to someone that gives a shit. Be less greedy. I’ve paid my share of capital gains, you don’t see me crying like a greedy little piggy about it.
It’s too bad no one agrees with you and you’ll die mad about it.
Waive tax for primary residence, tax the everliving fuck out of non-primary residences to the point nobody wants to rent them out anymore.
That’s a fictional scenario, though. Why would an entire house be selling for the same price as a tiny condo with HOA fees? These people have a huge house worth millions of dollars, so I’m confused why they would use a $500k sale price in their hypothetical scenario.
Sure those are made up numbers but they illustrate a real issue. Where i live, and I’m sure other high cost of living areas, it’s the land that’s expensive, in short supply. The actual house might be a much smaller part of that.
What that turns into is prices may be insane, but a house isn’t much more than a condo isn’t much more than a vacant lot. Then when you buy, taxes are reset to the new value, so property taxes will now be much higher and realtors commission will be insane. So they need to take a mortgage and take a cost of living hit on the taxes, then are clobbered by high interest. They may literally not be able to afford to downsize
Isn’t this where the boomers use a 1031 exchange and convert the large home into a smaller luxury condo for themselves and a few lower income units to rent out to struggling Millenials?
Rent it, buy a new house, die, and the tax threshold on estates is $2 million.
On the other hand; would you personally make that choice if you were in their situation? I am willing to bet you, nor any other reader, would not. While that doesn’t excuse the greed aspect of it; it does cast at least some light upon why they are refusing to sell and take a loss on it.
If you only paid $100,000 and you made $1,000,000; you’d have $900,000 profit; of which you’d probably only see ~60% to ~40% of, if Capital Gains taxes are anything near what I think they are. If we assume a “worst case”, where the Federal Government takes 40% and the State takes about 20% more, that means your tidy profit is only about $390,000. That means you’ve probably got to secure another $140,000 in financing on average to pick up a more modest $500,000 home (in today’s market) to retire in.
But villainizing the boomers isn’t going to solve the housing crisis easier either. We legitimately need more homes. We. Need. Them. Yesterday. So maybe the policy needs to lean towards bigger developments that cost less. We did it during WW2; where massive amounts of homes were built cheaply. We probably need to achieve that again, and do better than we did during a war that was diverting supplies away from the effort.
How do we achieve that? I don’t know.
If you only paid $100,000 and you made $1,000,000; you’d have $900,000 profit; of which you’d probably only see ~60% to ~40% of, if Capital Gains taxes are anything near what I think they are. If we assume a “worst case”, where the Federal Government takes 40% and the State takes about 20% more, that means your tidy profit is only about $390,000. That means you’ve probably got to secure another $140,000 in financing on average to pick up a more modest $500,000 home (in today’s market) to retire in.
Capital gains taxes range from 0-20% Federally, depending on your income. In Cali, the addition is up to 13%
Which means that worst case scenario, you sell a property in Cali, you would pay 33% of the profiit above the original price of the house and the 500,000 exemption. So on a house you bought for 100,000 and sold for 1,000,000, you’d pay the awful, awful price of… 133,000, leaving you with a paltry $867,000.
Ah; but did you forget you pay income tax on top of capital gains taxes?
Have you tried learning how something works before forming an opinion on it?
You literally don’t for long-term capital gains.
nor does the capital gains affect your ‘regular’ tax bracket.
Lol holy shit I can’t believe u said something this fucking stupid…hahaha
capital gains tax rates are a lot lower than that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax#United_States
these people are mostly greedy fucks that don’t want to pay their very reasonable share of taxes on their investment return.
I forgot about all the people howling and foaming at the mouth about the “death tax”. Boomers gonna boomer I guess.
Fewer older homeowners selling is part of what is keeping the inventory of homes historically low and pushing prices ever higher in markets across the US. Empty nesters of this age own more larger homes — three bedrooms or more — than Millennials with kids do.
Dragos said she understands that, as homeowners, theirs are enviable problems. They own an asset that has soared in value, after all.
But as she and her husband sit at their dining table discussing the morbid math — what is left after capital gains taxes, what happens if he dies first, what if she goes before him — she says they see no good options for how to get out from under their home while keeping an acceptable amount of profit from its sale, which they’d like to use to fund their retirement.
This is the problem. People trying to sell large, expensive homes for something smaller and have any appreciable difference in cost. No one is going to sell a 3,000sqft house for a 1,200sqft condo just to break even. They’ll just stay in their big homes and the housing market will continue to be fucked.
This is really only an issue right now in high COL areas where people are trying to change homes, not sell second homes for profit.
Most homeowners don’t have to pay capital gains on their home when they sell. Thanks to tax legislation from the ’90s, a gain of up to $250,000 for a single tax filer or $500,000 for a couple filing jointly is exempt from tax.
This is so when someone tries to change homes, they don’t lose most of their equity. This exemption only applies to primary residences, so people speculating with homes don’t benefit. The issue is that exemption ceiling has not kept pace with the massive inflation in high COL areas. Which further restricts the amount of homes for sale in those areas, driving up prices, etc.
A homeowner who keeps all the profit of a home that sells for $500,000, for example, may find that a condo in their same area, where they can age in place, is $450,000. After calculating realtor fees and closing costs, the profit hardly covers the new purchase, let alone provides any extra income for retirement.
No one will downsize if there’s no real benefit. This will freeze the housing market.
So they pay those taxes with the gains from the sale? What’s the fucking problem?
But unless this is a 2nd home, I don’t think they’ll pay anything unless it’s over some high amount.
If they’re in California, they might have gains of over a million dollars. The exemption cuts off at $500k of total gains; anything beyond that has to have taxes paid.
So they’re whining about paying taxes on a million dollar capital gain. They can go fuck themselves.
Why the fuck do you care? It’s their money from their house. It’s not yours to benefit from
We’re discussing the article here, junior.
And? They are still taking home hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash.
Ya to me this sounds more like people complaining they aren’t making as much money as they want to?
Hey they earned those gains through privilege and luck!
It reminds me of the people afraid to get a raise because they think going into the next tax bracket means they make less money.
Oh, no, boomers have to pay taxes on the MASSIVE gains on their cheaply purchased houses now worth millions. Cry me a river.
They already get to exclude $250,000 of increase (or $500,000 if married filing jointly). So a married couple selling a house they bought for $50k and sold for $550,000 pays no taxes at all!
So boomers need to shut the hell up.
Someone needs to go take a few tax and accounting classes.
Are you making a mental note to remind yourself to sign up for classes later?
No. What he was failing to understand was that a number of people wind up in a situation where going from the bigger home to the smaller home (after it’s all said said and done) they just barely break even. If they are only going to break even then why down size? Where’s the benefit? Who would say “hey I have an idea, let’s sell this big house, buy that smaller house, and not have extra cash after it’s done “. No one is taking that deal.
So if you are ok leaving this tax law in the 90s let’s leave minimum wage there too. Can’t have it one way, all pay and taxes should be changed as decades move on. You will be in the same predicament 30 years from now.
So if you are ok leaving this tax law in the 90s let’s leave minimum wage there too.
Federal Minimum wage even today ($7.25) means living $81 above the poverty line of $14,891.
Example of a home seller in the article they are walking away with $1.55m after all taxes paid.
These are not the same.
Can’t have it one way
And why not?
all pay and taxes should be changed as decades move on.
I do agree with this statement. Corporations are taxed way too low, and those at the bottom of the income ladder are subject to the highest taxation relative to their assets needed for basic living.
You will be in the same predicament 30 years from now.
$1.55m in my pocket after all taxes paid from selling a home would be a wonderful predicament to be in.
Prop 13 made it so their taxes did not change as the decades moved on. Their property was taxed much closer to that $100k value they bought their house than the current ~$2 million it is worth. They should have been paying about $19k each year in property taxes. Instead they were paying less than 1/10th that.
A half million in tax free capital gains isn’t enough for you? It was already too high in the 90s.
Minimum wage is an absolute measure: a fixed amount not pegged to inflation. Taxes are a percentage, a relative value that adapts to inflation.
I’m all for a relative measure for the minimum wage.
Also, in this scenario the people would be left with $1,620,000 after selling their house, which hardly leaves them without options. I get that they want to stay in that same neighborhood. But the problem they are facing is an enviable one for many less fortunate people.
I will never tire of people showing us exactly what kind of people they are going to be when they grow up.
The entire argument comes down to “oh, those poor people, they have to pay their fair share of taxes on the huge amount of equity they’ve just earned”. Seriously, the bias is disgusting.
Equity isn’t money in your pocket, though, and just because the house is suddenly worth $1.5 million on paper doesn’t mean they have extra money to pay their tax bill.
I know lots of people are bitter about the housing market but I don’t think it’s the fault of people who bought a home and just want to live in it. The people (or corporations) who buy homes as investment properties or to flip them are probably more worthy of anger.
The article is explicitly about capital gains. It’s not like they have to pay the tax before they sell it. Use the proceeds from selling to pay the tax. That’s the whole point.
They took the worse couple in the article. They have the house since the 90s. They will pocket a big fat check, and they are angry that they have to pay taxes on that.
Cry me a river.
I think you just argued against home ownership. The point in the equity is that it has a sustained value but is also non-fungible. The moment they sell the house, they will have all that cash to pay that tax bill. If they turn that equity into new equity (i.e sell one house and buy another) then they won’t pay a single cent unless their earnings are greater than $500,000.
Also the people in the article DO NOT WANT TO LIVE THERE ANYMORE but will not sell to a family who does want to live there because they don’t want to pay a little bit of taxes. And people wonder why everyone hates Boomers.
When they sell the asset, they need to pay the tax. Conveniently, at that point the sale provides the money from such the taxes should be paid.
Don’t have the money to pay the tax bill? Show me that math.
You buy a house for 300k, sell for 700k, you made 500k, that’s 15% tax filed jointly on long-term property. But wait! There’s more! You get to exclude the first 250k if it’s your primary residence! So you’re paying 15% on 250k. $37,500. Which is substantially less than income taxes.
They just sold the house and (assuming it was paid off) have 700k (less realtors fees, etc.) and absolutely could pay the tax. Even if it wasn’t paid off, the capital gains would be reduced and they would owe less money. We’ve moved and sold 2 homes in the last 20 years, made capital gains on each sale, and paid the appropriate taxes because we aren’t idiots and didn’t piss the money away.
So tell me again how they don’t have the “extra money to pay their tax bill”?
I mean it’s not like we can afford the big houses either. To prevent unrest governments should keep a close eye on the accessibility of bread, shelter, and grog.
Otherwise known as: boomers wanting to downsize are making a whole bunch of cash with which to do it and are finally paying a fair portion of their net worth.
Awwwe, are these people crying in realized gains? Boo fucking hoo.
Yeah no sympathy for large taxes on massive capital gains. Especially capital gains from the massive increase in housing costs
Seriously, wtf are they whining about. “If I subtract the money we paid from the current market value of our house we get such a nice number, but now we have to lose 14% of that 😭😭😭😭”
I think this article misses one of the big downsides to downsizing in California (where this article is focused): property tax. In California, property tax is basically based on purchase price. This means even if an owner can make a healthy profit moving to a smaller home, that profit might be gone in 10 years due to the increased property taxes. Even if seniors are interested in downsizing, it might be financially detrimental to do so, and they stay in place, which constrains the supply of “family homes”, making them more expensive and basically adds to the housing crisis.
