Grandma is on her own
-
I'm currently living in a slightly smaller house that's valued at 250k. The roof leaks and the porch is falling apart, but the town has doubled in size since COVID, and so has the cost of housing.
Where are you?
Seeing the prices I'd guess some 3rd tier city in the usa?
-
Where are you?
Seeing the prices I'd guess some 3rd tier city in the usa?
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Rural west coast. It is more expensive here than the midwest states, but the state insurance is fantastic, so the access to medical care is worth it.
Edit: Population of 2k, for the record
-
Surprise surprise, you only inherit a bunch of debt because that generation lived by "you can't take it with you".
wrote on last edited by [email protected]As someone who’s dealing with the estate process right now, I don’t think anyone inherits debt. It’s paid out of the estate and nobody else is responsible for those debts.
-
The fuck is going on where you live?
My family and I bought a 250m² house for less than 50k. (2yrs ago)
Meanwhile, in the suburbs of DC/Baltimore you have 96m² for $414k: Local Listing
-
Or does the correction in housing pricing lower their actual taxes paid in total on their main properties, granting them more breathing room, allowing them to comfortably afford the hunting lodge even if the rate itself has increased? You're expecting everything else to remain the same and just increased tax rates as a whole. Something like this would readjust the market values of properties and the subsequent tax being paid while making sure those corporations hoarding properties are taxed appropriately and providing inventory into a market that would bring pricing back down to earth. The rate could be increased but total paid could be lowered in these cases of second homes so long as tax increase is exponential and not flat on additional properties. The goal of measures like this would be to make companies hoarding thousands of properties an untenable option not to hurt every person who might look into having a second or third property.
Here's a thought, maybe instead of blindly following the original commenters idea and repeatedly posting the same thing, refine the idea to account for people the "fringe" case mentioned?
Maybe, in addition to the multiple house ownership and residence status conditions add one that factors in income/earnings (including any capital gains) and if you exceed a threshold then additional home taxes apply?
Maybe scale the additional taxes based on income/earnings so everyone is taxed but done so appropriately for their situation?
Or maybe adopt a system like some other countries have where the first house you own isn't taxed but additional homes are, then adjust other taxes in accordance? Under this system 5 families sharing a hunting cabin is not only easier for them but more economic and efficient than five families owning five separate cabins.
You'll never please everybody but laws and regulations should take into account all those they effect and serve the greatest number reasonably possible.
-
As someone who’s dealing with the estate process right now, I don’t think anyone inherits debt. It’s paid out of the estate and nobody else is responsible for those debts.
I was under the impression that was not the case. If the estate has no money to pay out, the collectors are gonna come knocking, no?
-
They can barely split it because they're all broke af not because the house is expensive. The house and land are pretty cheap
Yes and housing costs still take the largest chunk of low income people's income. This wouldnt only effect the costs associated with the cabin but also their main residence's taxes as well. Collected taxes might be used to improve public infrastructure and benefit programs which could also alleviate some of their expenses, giving them more ability to afford the cabin and have spending potential in other areas of their life. It's not a zero sum game.
-
I've said this before (and caught flak for it) but I think the solution to this is to apply a heavy additional tax to vacant homes (as defined as any home that isn't occupied by a permanent resident for more than 6 months a year), and increase the tax exponentially for each residence beyond the first owned by the same company or individual.
At some point, you make it so expensive to keep unoccupied properties that they're better off letting people live there for free than continuing to let them go unoccupied. Use all of the proceeds from this tax to assist homeless people or build new dense housing developments.
"But Kobold, what about soandso with their summer home?" If you can afford a second home, you can afford to pay a bit more tax on it to benefit the public good.
"But Kobold, a lot of those homes that are vacant are run-down, or are in places nobody actually wants to live!" Doesn't matter. If they're vacant, tax them. Use the money to build dense housing in the places where people do want to live. If the place is too run-down to be occupied, the owner can tear it down and do something else with it.
I say the local government gets eminent domain on any properties that aren't primary residences staying vacant more than a year and/or vacant >75% of the time over 5 years. Make it the owners responsibility to keep someone living under the roof. There will be enough loopholes that it won't be their second home, by maybe by the third and any corporately owned ones they'll start to sweat.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Almost helped an old lady across the street, but then she said "I need about tree fitty" and that's when I realized that this old lady was 10 stories tall and a crustacean from the Paleozoic Era.
-
As someone who’s dealing with the estate process right now, I don’t think anyone inherits debt. It’s paid out of the estate and nobody else is responsible for those debts.
It's actually expensive, and the property is taxed as usual. If you don't monetise the area you're going to lose. It depends.
-
I was under the impression that was not the case. If the estate has no money to pay out, the collectors are gonna come knocking, no?
wrote on last edited by [email protected]I don’t believe so. I was explicitly told by my lawyer not to pay any estate debts with my own money.
I believe there are a few niche scenarios where somebody else can be responsible for the debt (eg joint account, co-signed loan), but in general, you should never pay somebody else’s estate debts.
-
It's actually expensive, and the property is taxed as usual. If you don't monetise the area you're going to lose. It depends.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]What’s expensive, and what area are you referring to?
-
Almost helped an old lady across the street, but then she said "I need about tree fitty" and that's when I realized that this old lady was 10 stories tall and a crustacean from the Paleozoic Era.
I gave him a dollar
-
I was under the impression that was not the case. If the estate has no money to pay out, the collectors are gonna come knocking, no?
They can come knocking all they want, but you are not legally required as an heir to pay that debt. Surely there are a few exceptions like mortgage payments (if u wanna keep the house), but personal debts like credit cards? Not your problem.
-
As someone who’s dealing with the estate process right now, I don’t think anyone inherits debt. It’s paid out of the estate and nobody else is responsible for those debts.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Not really, but there's not much being left for the children of boomers to inherit.
edit: And in the broader sense, yes. Millennial and younger are inheriting the debt from Bush II's wars. We didn't have any vote on that matter, but we're the ones who are paying that off. 2.8 trillion. After the shitshow of a covid response, I never want to hear someone mention the 3000 dead.
-
Is one really real responsible or one's choices of they were not aware of their consequences? (I personally do think so)
But what if they had wrong information?
And what if they were purposefully misinformed by a third party for that third party's gain?
They should have researched things or at least not dismiss anyone who voices any skepticism. I had my free education wasted because no one wanted to take me seriously. At least I get to say I TOLD YOU SO. These people are more then just misinformed. They're cult members who viciously protect their misinformation.
-
I gave him a dollar
She gave him a dollar
-
Not really, but there's not much being left for the children of boomers to inherit.
edit: And in the broader sense, yes. Millennial and younger are inheriting the debt from Bush II's wars. We didn't have any vote on that matter, but we're the ones who are paying that off. 2.8 trillion. After the shitshow of a covid response, I never want to hear someone mention the 3000 dead.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]I hear the opposite, boomer’s kids stand to inherit quite a bit. Anecdotally this seems true; granted I am an only child.
My father is likely to leave me with a few hundred thousand of his retirement account (he doesn’t know what to spend it on, his union pension is more than enough for his needs) and I’ll inherit both his house as well as my grandmothers house, which is now my uncle’s house. My mom’s house will be sold and split between my half brother and my cousin who my mother raised.
-
Inflation is a thing that exists. Saying that someone is bad simply because they want to update the value of their property is dumb. Also, let's say granny wants to downisze. Should she sell her home for a value way below market and then be unable to buy a smaller home for herself?
Yeah yeah I didn't count inflation but there's no way in fuck that poor old granny is just under the thumb of inflation.
The point is that everyone wants to fuck everyone, but they are the victim because everyone else wants to fuck them. It's greed from all angles, plain and simple.
I think everyone should get fucked and the housing bubble burst harder than the 08 implosion, frankly. Who is holding the bag isn't my problem, but the situation now where everyone fucking everyone else over isn't sustainable and is disproportionately screwing over the lower class. It's not my fault that granny was banking on screwing over the millenials to trade up to a beachfront property in the keys
-
I hear the opposite, boomer’s kids stand to inherit quite a bit. Anecdotally this seems true; granted I am an only child.
My father is likely to leave me with a few hundred thousand of his retirement account (he doesn’t know what to spend it on, his union pension is more than enough for his needs) and I’ll inherit both his house as well as my grandmothers house, which is now my uncle’s house. My mom’s house will be sold and split between my half brother and my cousin who my mother raised.
Bush's war debts.
