201
This boomer couple would be hit with $700,000 tax bill if they sold their mansion
(www.businessinsider.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2025
201 points (100.0% liked)
A Boring Dystopia
13322 readers
720 users here now
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
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
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.
The “profit” is realized as soon as the sale goes through. Your financial illiteracy and the confidence with which you wield it is astonishing.
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.
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.
You'd only pay taxes if you made a profit on your home sale.
The issue is that a “profit” on a home sale is not a profit at all, since that money needs to be dumped back into the purchase price as soon as you move. The tax straight up makes it impossible for families to MOVE. What are you not understanding? These aren’t landlords. They’re just people trying to move from point A to point B.
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.
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:
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.