Joel and Kathryn Friedman, both 71, are counting the days until they can sell their home and move into a 55-plus community.

The retired empty-nesters have been ready to downsize for years, but are reluctant to sell their five-bedroom, 5,000-square-foot Southern California house [mansion] in large part because of at least $700,000 in capital gains taxes they estimate they'd have to pay.

Since 1997, home sale profits over $500,000 (for married couples) and $250,000 (for single filers) have been subject to a capital gains tax of up to 20%. That threshold hasn't changed since 1997, meaning that — between inflation and soaring home prices pushing an ever higher number of houses above that limit — many more home sellers have to pay the tax now than when it was first implemented.

The Friedmans are among a growing number of older homeowners discouraged by the tax from selling their valuable properties. Housing economists say that dynamic has exacerbated a shortage of family-sized homes on the market, especially in expensive places like California.

The Friedmans' house is too big for them, and maintenance costs are only rising, Joel said. "There are a million reasons why we'd like to move, but we're not because the tax is just burdensome," he said.

But that could change — there's bipartisan support in Congress for raising the federal tax threshold to boost home sales in a stagnant market.

top 100 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 194 points 1 year ago (13 children)

In other words, their house would sell for at least 3.5 million. Where exactly is the problem?

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 185 points 1 year ago* (10 children)

    3.5 million is the increase in value over what they paid. That means they were making well over $100,000 every year for the past three decades, and they are complaining about paying cap gains.

    Fucking Boomers.

    Although increasing the exemption amount to peg inflation does make sense.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Also capital gains on a primary residence should decrease somewhat over time.

    These arent property speculators or people buying and parking empty homes. They are people who bought a house, lived in the community, probably raised a family and didnt move for 30 years and now want to downsize.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

    Uh... How is one's house appreciating in value equivalent to making money? It's impossible to access most of that money because, you know, they need somewhere to live, and according to the article the difference is supposed to pay for their retirement and healthcare. I have no idea how the math will turn out but 1-2 million for two 71 year-olds looking to live for 15-ish years in Southern California isn't outrageous at all. The fact it seems outrageous is purely due to how completely fucked up everything has become for the working class over the past few decades.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    The fact it seems outrageous is purely due to how completely fucked up everything has become for the working class over the past few decades.

    Which is why nobody here has any sympathy for their situation. They're doing better than the vast majority of the population. At least they have 3.5 million dollars coming to them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    You’re right, it’s not the same as regular income. Which is why a) we don’t tax the gains at the same rate as income and b) the tax is only assessed when the sale occurs.

    And it’s not 1-2 million, it’s approx 4 million (4.8 minus tax) to go along with their social security income (according to the article) and presumably other retirement income

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago

    Just weeks after Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene introduced a bill to eliminate the federal capital gains tax on home sales, Trump said the effort could help juice housing market sales amid persistently high interest rates.

    This is exactly the problem.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 125 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    700k is 20% of 3.5 million

    That leaves 2.8 million

    If put into savings with a 4% annual interest rate, that is 112k per year

    And they are complaining?

    You fucking kidding me?

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 33 points 1 year ago

    2.8 million dollars is more than most people have the ability to save for retirement in the first place.
    They want us to cry for them because their payout from a single asset after tax is more than the average middle class retirement account?
    Get fucking real, if anything this makes me think the capital gains tax is too low for their bracket.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Agreed... this couple isn't hurting either way.

    However as they said the limit hasn't changed in almost 20 years. For most older people in America their home is the single most valuable possession and what many have to sell when they are unable to care for themselves and have to go into some kind of care facility. For people living in a HCOL area, their home can easily be many times more valuable than their savings and their primary or only asset of significant value, and a $1M house is a starter home.

    It makes sense for the limits to be increased, but the couple that's the subject of this article doesn't deserve anyone getting teary-eyed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Yeah that exemption always seemed pretty high, but as a newly single person (where the exemption is cut in half) in a high cost of living state where home prices have been rising excessively, and I’ve owned my home long enough to raise kids (and increase value a lot) ….. yeah it’s easier to see the other side. I’m ok but far from wealthy, and need to downsize in order to afford retiring, but would also be hit by capital gains.

    Given what home prices have been doing and this exemption never changing, it’s no longer realistic. Now it’s not just the wealthy

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 140 points 1 year ago (21 children)

    Ohh no they have to pay taxes? Was this written by a toddler?

    I swear to go, people are so disgustingly greedy i have little hope without a thorough revolution.

  • source
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    I mean,

    While the Friedmans have done well financially, they're relying on the profits from their future home sale to help fund their retirement. They're concerned that Joel's Social Security checks and Kathryn's pension won't be enough to cover healthcare bills and long-term care as they age.

    Add in buying a new house and moving costs and it makes sense why they'd be hesitant. Retirement and housing are expensive.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 50 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Selling their house for $4,500,000 and paying $750,000 in taxes still leaves them with $3,750,000 for an over-55s, healthcare, and investing.

    I think the multi-millionaires will be fine.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Okay disclaimer: I believe having to pay any kind of tax on your primary residence is messed up, so I'm more than a little biased here.

    As far as I've been able to find on Google, retirement in California runs up to about 1 million a decade. With a generous estimate of 20 years remaining for both of them, you're looking at 1.75 mil for buying a home, moving, assorted emergencies, end of life care, inheritance before you factor in anything they might actually want to do with their remaining lifetimes. That's... not really a lot. I mean hell, the median home in San Francisco is 1.5 mil. It's certainly possible to cut costs here and there to make it work (particularly by choosing a house on the cheaper side) without having a below-average retirement, but at this point we're talking about retired people wanting a good location and quality of life and maybe some financial freedom for their retirement, not evil rich people hoarding money. What I'm trying to say here is that working class people (indeed, everyone) should be allowed to want this stuff, and not denied it because the government would rather take their money than tax the filthy rich. I'm speculating here, but I doubt any of this is radically different from what would be considered normal, maybe on the better side, 50 years ago. Capitalism has managed to convince people that they're not entitled to this stuff, but they are. You, me, the couple in the article, we're all entitled to a good retirement with financial freedom; just because not all of us get to have it doesn't change that fact.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago*

    This assumes the people who had the means to obtain a 5,000 square foot house in Southern California, which was still a costly prospect even 30-40 years ago have absolutely no means of retirement planning aside from their home.

    Given their social status they are far more likely to have well funded 401ks and given their age they are even likely to have access to pensions (edit: they def do!), a pipe dream for the millennial and younger.

    They can pay their fucking taxes. Maybe shop at Neiman Marcus less, buy a few less Lacoste shirts and tighten your purse strings like the rest of us. I probably won’t ever retire and I certainly won’t ever fund the building of a house worth 1.8million in 1990 dollars

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    In fairness, buying into those retirement communities aint cheap either. They know that people looking to move into them are usually selling an older and much larger home and can afford to pay a premium.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    If 3 million are not enough i very much doubt the 750.000 would make a difference.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    How so? Assuming a total of a million and a half for buying a house, moving and whatever else they need to do before actually moving in, that's about 2 mil for two retired people looking to live 15-20 years in California (subtracted 1 mil from 4.5 mil). The difference 2 mil and 3 mil or even 2.5 mil represents a massive change in quality of life, financial freedom, etc. Note that a moderate standard of living as a retired couple in California costs about 1 mil/decade*, so the extra money means they can have something for emergencies, to leave as inheritance or whatever else someone might want to do with money. I certainly wouldn't gamble on having to live the last years of my life stony broke.

    *This is likely going to get even higher with Trump et al ruining everything.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    So you are saying they will be able to buy a new house, move and then have some left over from the money they got due to selling their old home? Well how are they paying for everything right now

    At the end of the day i doubt that we have the same views about fairness at all. I am happy for them that the piece of land that they bought ages ago is now worth a lot. There are however many more losers than winners with this development, so maybe forgive us for not feeling sorry for the winners having to share some.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

    Let’s say I want to sell my (cheaper) home and buy another one — the same type of house, but I want to move. Well, I can’t, because as soon as I sell it and get taxed, I can’t afford to buy a house anymore. These aren’t landlords. We’re talking primary home residence.

    For the people downvoting me: as average home prices increase in value you will eventually be unable to sell your home and move anywhere else. We went from $200k average home prices to $500k in just a few years. Ordinarily you would sell your current house and buy another one, but with this tax you can’t afford to do so. You’re locked in forever. Welcome to a shitty housing market.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    That's not how this works. Not how any of this works at all. God damnit people need to keep their traps locked shut.

    If you keep a profit from the sale, you get a tax on the profit at the end of the year.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Even if you use the proceeds to immediately buy another house, you still have to pay the tax, unless you are a landlord then you get a tax break, because we must protect those landlords but not private homeowners...

    So you may be at a 15% or so disadvantage looking for a new place to live if you wanted to sell your property and move.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    No you don't get taxed at sale and even if you did booo fucking hoo. If you're sitting on 500k+ in gains after downsizing then eat it and pay the tax. I'll play a sad violin story for the top 2% in the richest nation in the world.

    I can't move because of these taxes 🙄 fuck off with that circle jerk

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    As a private homeowner you want to trade your $500k house to move near an adult child after your spouse dies. With the housing markets being equal, you end up owing a ton of capital gains tax but having to spend more just to try to keep even.

    Or, as the tax code seems to want to encourage, the private homeowner becomes a landlord because that at least might let them keep pace with a new mortgage they have to take on.

    It's crazy that we give tax advantage to landlords and deny them to people actually using their houses.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Business Insider so basically yes. I've never seen a "news outlet" blow business people as hard as them so I guess the name fits.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Problem is, many people do not see the lunacy and think taxes are stealing while it is at the moment the only way to take at least a share from the wealthy and give it to the poor.

    But people hate the poor and needs. "Those lazy fucks deserve what they got" seems to be the spirit of the people i have talked to.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 179 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Couple are set to make $3.5 million in profit, are asked to pay tax, say no and greedily hoard their asset some more and cry about the hardship.

    Fuck off.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    They should be asking themselves why they haven't done more to give back to the society that gave them so much, but instead they're whining about a meager 20% tax on staggering profits. Instead of lowering capital gains, it should be raised, over a certain threshold. Hell, we should be taxing the wealth they just have sitting around so that we can show wealthy people like these two shameful selfish pricks what it feels like to really contribute.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 62 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    I pay zero taxes if I were to sell my house. Because I don't own a house, I can't afford one. I'm forced to rent.

    My boomer parents constantly complain their pension is shit. They have to watch their spendings, they tell me. They live in a big house, surrounded by water and nature (in the Netherlands, so expensive AF), with a sailing boat AND an expensive motorboat in front of their house, an SUV and caravan, they completely remodeled their garden including expensive fences, they go on holiday about 5 times a year, they got solar panels and heat pump installed, got a new kitchen, bathroom and toilet, expensive automated sun screens for all their windows (all around the house). But they are treated like shit with their poor pension. My dad bought his first house when he finished his studies, my mom never had to work anymore as my dad made more than enough to support a household of 5, we always lived in middle class neighborhoods, we went to private schools. But they complain they have to buy fuel to come visit me, so they rather have me visit them instead. I live in social housing and struggle every month paying my bills. They never gave me a penny as soon as I left the house as I'm a major disappointment, even though I'm financially and mentally struggling (autism, ADHD, PTSD). They even changed their will because I'm such a disappointment so I will get the bare minimum and my perfect younger brother gets almost everything even though he makes loads of money every month.

    I don't give a fuck. I don't want anything from them when they die. I'm not complaining about not getting anything. I'm just complaining their love for me is measured in success and that they are privileged fucks who constantly complain about their sad rich lives while many others are actually struggling and they don't give a fuck about them. They are an example of what's wrong with society. I broke off all contact with them. Fucking boomers. They even turned full right wing racists even though their parents and grandparents fought in the resistance during the second world war and got deported and tortured to death by the nazis in concentration camps.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I guess all the boomer parents are like that. I have a really good relationship with my parents, but they wouldn't help me out when my boyfriend and I bought a flat. Went as far as telling me that I'm trying to rob them, because maybe I can't afford the flat and then the bank will take their houses. I told them the bank just can't do that and they didn't believe me until they went to talk to a lawyer. And best part is, now they always say I'm not thankful because I will inherit their houses and they build them for me? And their parents were really poor small scale farmers, still they saved up to help them with their first home. As you can tell I'm still bitter about that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I know some proper boomer parents but they are rare AF.

    My parents paid everything for my perfect brother when he went studying. He had a luxurious life as a student.

    I failed in school, because I was special (autistic later turned out) but should have acted like nothing was wrong. So I didn't get a penny when I couldn't eat for a week because I was completely broke. Instead they told me. To get my shit together, act like an adult for once and take responsibility for my actions.

    So far they never acknowledged they ever made a single mistake, they project all their mistakes and failures into me or others, they complain constantly like spoiled entitled teenagers and they do nothing but judge people who are less fortunate.

    I'm 38 now, they still tell me I'm behaving like a child even though I always say sorry for the mistakes I make, I always take responsibility and acknowledge when I'm wrong. I fought in wars (in the military), I have fought mental health my entire life, I struggled within the system my whole life, I have loads of friends who I'd die for and who'd die for me, while my parents have no one and are just a bunch of entitled sour lonely fucking boomers. Who's the responsible adult here? Although I doubted myself many many times, my therapists and friends have ensured me it's them, not me. And I started to see that too, so I ended my relationship with my parents for good. And with my entitled little brother who always takes my mom's side no matter what.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    At least you got out of that horrible family dynamic! Don't know if I can judge from one comment, but sounds like your wellbeing didn't benefit from the relationship and am happy for you that you're doing better for yourself. And of course there are some nice boomers but even if I have the nicest, most loving parents they just seem they don't care about the future of their kids and next generation while the generations before tried to make their kids' lives better.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [+] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Sadly it took me way to long to let go of the constant argument people with a good relationship with their parents tell me: "but they're your parents dude!"

    Exactly, they are, I didn't chose them, unlike my friends who actually treat me with respect and dignity. Fuck toxic family, fuck toxic people, surround yourself with people who love you for who you are and who you love for who they are. Treating each other with mutual respect. Fuck manipulative narcissistic behavior. Even when they are your parents.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    They demand to be repaid for raising you. We didn't chose to be put on this fucking world. They chose kids, it's their responsibility. We owe them nothing. "But we love you." Then fucking show it instead of making our lives miserable. Give love, get love back. Give shit, demand love back? That's not how it works. "But everything we do, we do with good intentions." Impact weighs heavier than intentions. They prioritize their own wishes over the happiness of their kids. I hate religion, but I like the expression "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". Something especially boomers will never understand. And sadly many more in this world. Compassion and accepting others for who they are, the way they are and want to be, are sadly rare these days. My goal in life is to show it still exists. And I have many good friends because of it.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    My parents live 2h drive away and are already guilt tripping me for that drive. While they would come to me 10% of the time, I had to go there 90% of the time. I'm autistic too, my mom drains me within an hour. No joke.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 53 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Capital gains tax of up to 20%.

    What's 5x 700,000 ?

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Yeah, and the tax is only on the profit they make, not the entire selling price.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    And any capital improvements will lower that ‘profit’ too. So anything from a new water heater to a new roof can be used to raise the cost basis of the home lowering the tax paid.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Both of those examples are “regular maintenance” that aren’t legally capital improvements

    At least as importantly , who tracks this stuff for the decades you might live in a house. I always thought this exemption was good in fairness alone: as someone just trying to live, I’m unlikely to keep the decades of paperwork needed for this, whereas a wealthy person with an accountant or business manager would

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 48 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    This is the dumbest fucking article, holy shit. Fucking boomers. Cry more about paying the already generously low LT cap gains tax. Jesus fucking christ.

    The one thing that would turn my exhausted ire into joyful schadenfreude is if they equity-leveraged the shit out of it, and didn’t understand that this would hit them in the balls when they eventually sold.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago*

    Yeah. My wife and I paid roughly 38% on the 120k we made last year through grueling hours and hard work.

    These old fuckers should pay at least that much in taxes on the house they made millions on just by living in it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 48 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Your home listed at...$4,500,000 is going to cost you $700,000 in taxes? Cry me a river straight to the bank with your remaining $3,800,000. I hope they raise the tax.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Plus they're in their 70's. Pretty sure 3.8 mil will last you the rest of your life.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    I'm in my 30s and could make 3.8 million last me the rest of my life. Even if I wasn't good at investing and just put it in an interest checking account earning 1% interest, it would earn 38,000 a year. Which is right around what I make now. There's two of them, and you do have to account for inflation, but it really wouldn't be difficult to get 2-3% return on that and still be able to live off the interest alone.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 48 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    Yep that's how taxes fucking work

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    The unfair part of this is that the $500k threshold for the tax hasnt been updated since 1997.

    In 1997 the average price for a house in California was about 180k now its $800k. If the tax was the same ratio it now wouldnt apply until the house was worth about 2.2mil (napkin math, I'm not getting out the calculator) Now I'm not saying they arent crying about a problem many of us would kill to have but thats a difference of about $340,000 in taxes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    They knew the limit when they bought the house. And it's gone up more than they could've dreamed. That's plenty fair.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    Problem is their house went up by a huge percentage, but so to has every housing arrangement they will need.

    Maybe not a whole lot of sympathy for someone having to sort out living arrangements with 'only' $2.8 million or so to work with, but this can scale down to pretty 'normal' house prices like $500k.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    And how much have wages gone up? $500k is still very expensive, sounds like maybe it should be a little more but it sounds more like a consequence of letting housing prices run away for a few decades.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Either you shouldnt be paying any capital gains on a primary residence full stop or it should be on a sliding rate over time. (20% for first year -1% per year after)

    Buying a house (even a mcmansion) and living in it for 30 years isnt a hustle or an investment strategy... its just living.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Plenty of folks are relying on the sale of their homes to pay for retirement, this couple in question is even an example of that. The big issue there is that it requires home prices to just climb and climb because they have to outpace each other(a sale of a home for this purpose will also need to buy the next home). The value of the home goes up with inflation but it also gets an additional increase because now it’s expected to help pay for 15-30 years of retirement, and the cheaper houses see the price range vacuum and seek to fill it not only because of greed but also because its sale will probably be used to buy the bigger, now even more expensive home. It’s shelter and we treat it like a luxury good.

    Every time the price is referenced it’s used as excuse to raise prices elsewhere. It’s a feedback loop of greed fueled by the lack of a safety net and a lack of protections for both homeowners and renters. In Canada and the US things are extra bad because the demand in good cities is high but a lot of the existing housing, and even the new stuff, is production homes in “neighbourhoods” that are isolated, car-centric deserts and it’s still expensive.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    Keep in mind, it's profit. If you bought the house for $500k and selling for $800k, that's only $300k in profit. Plus you can include the cost on renovations and there are lower percentages when you own and live in the house for over 2 years.

  • source
  • parent
  • They are soooooo poor 😭 😭 😭 i can't contain my sadness over this unjust tax 😭 😭 😭 Their house is worth 🤑4,5 million dollars🤑, and they don't want to 😡subsidize the state😡, that would be 👿evil socialism👿 ‼️ ‼️ ‼️

    damn, i wish i had that problem.

  • source
  • [–] 38 points 1 year ago

    Sounds like they can afford it if they're rich enough to own that house.

  • source
  • [–] 93 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Make $3,500,000 in profit and you get upset that you have to pay taxes on your 3.5x return on "investment."

    If you can't cover <$1M in taxes from the sale of your $4.5M home maybe you should live within your means or get a roommate to help cover the bills like a normal person or something.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    There's an alternative out, and one I think most people would object more to from a fairness perspective.

    Selling their house means they lose out on a ton of the value, so don't sell, rent it out and have the current tax code coddle you because the tax code heavily favors being a landlord rather than selling the house.

    It's busted that we actively encourage people to lock property up as investment because using a house you own is more expensive than not using a house you own.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 65 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Oh jesus fucking christ.... sell the damn thing. They'll still walk away with $2.8 million in their pockets that they can't currently spend. They're just being stupid greedy fucks who can't bear the idea that it could become even more valuable if they wait longer.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    I think that if you only own one property it would make sense to pay the tax on gains at the end of the fiscal year. If you sell $3.5m house and same year buy a smaller $2m house you only pay 20% of the $1.5m you actually gained. It's idiotic that simply moving somewhere can cost you 20% of your house value, even if you moved to house of equal value and haven't made any money.. If you own more then one property you pay 20% of the sale profit same as now.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    For a couple, the first 500k of profit is ignored from the sale of a primary home lived in for at least 2 years. Which is more than an 11% break on their tax bill if they had gotten the house for free.

    (So sale price of house - original full cost of house - 500k deduction ) * 20%

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago

    What makes this even worse is the article doesn't mention all the money this couple saved by not paying rent for the duration of their home ownership. So not only would they make profit on the sale, they didn't have to pay rent for all those years, and instead got to keep that money, which puts them at a much bigger financial advantage than folks who can't afford a home in the first place.

  • source
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago

    The tax is only 20%, like you get to keep the other 80%. That sounds pretty good to me.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    If taxes go down, prices can go up even more.

  • source
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Where exactly is this a dystopia? The part where rich people too have to pay taxes?

    I guess you're mistaken, /r/aceoandultrawealthydystopia is a different sub.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    The fact that the house is woth that much in the first place. Thing is owning a single home doesn't make you rich, since you need a home to life, you can't get that money unless you're willing to downgrade. Now these people are, but the tax is limiting their options. Real estate should be taxed while you have it, not when you sell.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    I know a way they could avoid those capital gains taxes...

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Everyone in here is ripping these people and ignoring their actual situation and the problem it creates for all of us.

    If their profit is that high, they bought decades ago, when the price of a home like this was in the reach of a normal high paid professional. Decades later after raising kids, paying for college, and saving normally, they might not be wealthy, or even rich in cash and investments. This house might be a large majority of their net worth. And guess what? Anywhere they want to move is going to have had the same crazy inflation as their current home. Why would they sell when, after taxes, any place they buy with what's left will be a major step down.

    And for their specific example, 55-plus communities usually sell for much less per sqft because they come with huge HOA fees to fund all their amenities. Generally people expect to pay these fees with the difference between the sale of their old home and the new one. They might not be able to afford the HOA fees after taxes.

    They've got two choices: They can sell and either make up the taxes with their savings, drastically reducing their standard of living (if they're even able to do that, don't forget if they take 700k out of a 401k all at once they'll get wrecked in taxes that year) or move somewhere shittier with the after tax proceeds. Or stay in their too large home, keeping it off the market. Edit: I forgot a commonly used option; keep the old place, rent it out and charge enough to pay the mortgage on the new place and property tax, HOAs, and maintenance on both (and why not a little profit too?), further fucking the market.

    Empty nesters staying in their family homes keeps them off the market driving up the costs for young families and everyone else in the market as a whole.

    As far as a solution goes, I'm not a fan of a larger exemption. I would advocate a special account for home sale profits, kind of like an HSA or a 529, that could only be used tax free for qualified expenses like purchasing a home, property taxes, and HOAs. But anything that encourages older people to leave their too-large homes for something more suitable would help the market for everyone.

    If you can't get past "boo hoo rich people problems," cut the numbers in half, or more. The problem persists. In California a profit in excess of 500k (250k for a single person) after decades of living in a modest family home is not at all rare. Many normal people who are not rich by any stretch find themselves in this situation.

    My MiL was in this exact situation (selling and moving to a 55-plus community), and she is not rich. To make the numbers work I had to make her investments higher risk/higher reward than they should be for her age to allow for larger withdrawals. Luckily she has my wife and I to make up the difference if it goes tits-up, but not everyone has that luxury.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    So in other words it is taxed substantially less than income... Even though it is clearly a form of income... Cry me a river...

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    Oh no. They only get to keep 2.8 million? Whatever will they do?

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    You're fucking kidding me, how does this count as a dystopia?

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    It'd be funny if they died like a week after the sale closes and they move into the new community.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›