151
This boomer couple would be hit with $700,000 tax bill if they sold their mansion
(www.businessinsider.com)
Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.
Rules (Subject to Change)
--Be a Decent Human Being
--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title
--If a picture is just a screenshot of an article, link the article
--If a video's content isn't clear from title, write a short summary so people know what it's about.
--Posts must have something to do with the topic
--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.
--No NSFW content
--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world
If California is too expensive for them why don't they move somewhere within their means? Get a roommate? Stop eating avocado toast?
Note while the amount is dramatic, the same general principle applies for a widow selling their 500k house that was 100k and being out 80k in taxes and stuck having to get living arrangements for 420k in a market where her house sold for 500k.
Particularly egregious: if a landlord sold the same sort of house they could turn around and buy a different 500k house with zero tax burden. This exemption is not available to private homeowners, only for investment properties you don't live in. We give a tax break for using houses as purely financial instruments but penalize people actually buying for themselves.
Your widow would only be out 30k, not 80. There's a deduction for primary home profits.
The 1031 like-kind exchange you're talking about is only a deferment. It's more available yes, but if that exchange chain is ever broken all those taxes need to be paid
You are right about 30k instead of 80k, my mistake, but still a fair chunk of change.
The deferment is reasonable, but it's insane that an investment property can be traded in without taking the tax penalty, but you can't do that with a residence.
You jest but that's exactly my point. This logic is messed up when it's applied to anyone, so it's messed up when applied to wealthier-than-average-but-not-outrageously-so retirees.
I'm sorry, but if they have three million dollars left after taxes when they sell their house, they are extremely wealthy. Three million dollars is easily enough to support a couple their age for the rest of their lives.
And I was actually serious when I said "live within their means" -- if three million dollars is too little to live on in California, they can move somewhere cheaper.
3 million is not extremely wealthy. You're comparing upper middle class retirees to people who own multiple yachts worth more than this couple's biggest asset
If they already have a house, otherwise the math changes dramatically. In many parts of California the median house costs more than one million dollars, and a retired couple needs a little north of a million per decade to live with a "normal" quality of life in California according to Google. That's three million right there, before you get into any of the million things that could require significant sums of money a retired couple could face in their remaining 15 or so years of existence.
Why should they? Hell, why should anyone? If they want to stay in their home state, why should they be forced to leave? People have a right to live, and the fact that that right is denied to too many people is no excuse to deny it to everyone else.