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.
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.
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”?
Aww these poor Boomers just made too much money on their homes and now they have to pay some taxes if they want to sell for huge profits. Boo fucking hoo.
While also taking away starter homes.
What the fuck am I supposed to live in?
I’m sick and fucking tired of moving from rented basement, to rented attic, to basement, to garage… Etc… every 2 goddamn years I have to move. I’m almost 40, never going to be married, and stuck renting absolute overpriced shit. I’m so over it.
Not that I don’t emphasize with your struggle - I just want to point out that there are people stuck in those “starter homes” with 5 or more kids who could really benefit from a 5 bedroom upgrade because they’re at a point in their lives where they can afford it and they need it. The housing crisis we’re living through produces victims up and down the income ladder.
Also this whole problem can be traced back to our absurd zoning laws blanketing most of California and the US. Still the boomers’ fault, but not for decisions they’re making today. Most of them are screwed right along with the rest of us. :(
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
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.
… 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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
A normal.person would still be ecstatic…
Not to mention that the capital gains tax ranges from 10%-20% depending on income, so of the $1.4 million in taxable gains they’re only paying $140,00-$280,000 dollars, meaning after they sell the house they still get $1.7 million profit.
Yep, and both over 70, so it’s not like they’re paying a lot in taxes.
They’re just greedy boomers that don’t want to pay taxes, nothing new or surprising
The issue is with the tax and high costs of homes, they break even or worse when downsizing. They aren’t realizing that profit from selling because they are trying to buy another, smaller house.
If their new house is less than a million, they’re fine…
Very few people “downsize” to a million dollar property.
Hell, they get $500k before any tax
