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.
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.
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.
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.
I mean,
Add in buying a new house and moving costs and it makes sense why they’d be hesitant. Retirement and housing are expensive.
It’s almost like housing shouldn’t be a retirement plan.
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.
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.
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
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.
And they won’t pay that unless it’s a second home and they don’t buy and take in capital gains.
they have a pension and nearly $3M in cash coming in from the sale (after tax)
if they have money issues at 71 with that situation, boohoo
If 3 million are not enough i very much doubt the 750.000 would make a difference.
That’s the difference of $26,250 per year to spend without risking digging into the principle.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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
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.
The “profit” is realized as soon as the sale goes through. Your financial illiteracy and the confidence with which you wield it is astonishing.
The first 250k (500k for a couple) of profit from your primary residence (if lived in at least 2 years) is excluded from taxation.
To explain in a nicer way where your error in thinking is:
You don’t pay the taxes specified in the article on the whole amount of money you get for selling your house, only on the increased value compared to when you bought it.
So as example: you buy the house for 1 million and sell it later for 2 million. Then the tax in the article is only applied to the 1 million difference, so you only give away part of the money that you got in addition to the value you bought the house for. So you always end up with more money than you paid for the house, just not the full value.
Right but the rest of the housing market has also moved on. The cost basis of that house won’t come anywhere near buying equivalent housing in the present
Let’s say you bought a decent house back in the day for 100k, and now that house can go for 500k because it’s a typical family home and all those homes are now 500k.
Let’s say your spouse dies and you could stand for a different house, maybe closer to a family member that can help take care of things. You can sell your house for 500k, but you are left with only 420k that you keep. Sure you could easily afford 100k homes if they still existed, but now homes cost as much as you sold yours for.
The real kicker is there is a like-kind exemption that would negate this, but it’s not allowed for your actual primary residence, only as an investment property. Landlords are protected from this but residential homeowners are not.
I don’t have an error. If you buy a house for $200k (average price for houses in the US some years ago) and it now costs $500k (average price for houses in US today), this tax makes it LITERALLY impossible for you to sell your house and buy another one. This is a new phenomenon.
That part is normal?
For real estate there is always a loss involved. Because multiple people and their work are involved and the state also wants their taxes of course. What you want seems to be ‘government not involved’ market of real estate and I’m not really a fan of unregulated markets. They tend to fuck us normal persons even more.
The discussion for this article is about downsizing the house and that is definitely possible, even after paying that tax.
You think it’s normal to lock the US population into place, decrease housing market liquidity, reduce inventory, and drive up home prices?
Here’s what I think is normal: the primary residence, which is traditionally the primary stock of wealth for the working and middle classes, should not be taxed. Period. Your second house should be taxed. Your third house should be taxed. Your huge boat should be taxed. Not your home.
People need to stop their war on the US middle class, which is rapidly disappearing. The majority of the wealth is in the hands of the top 1-10%. Not the middle 50, or the working poor, who are the most impacted by this moronic tax.
Behold, the impact of property taxes: