Yes, exactly. The higher prices go, the more it costs to make a local move. We only "win" if we actually cash out and move to a different, less expensive area, but we don't want to do that. We like it here.

Do you mean “win” compared to the counterfactual where the house has appreciated and you don’t move to a similar one, or compared to the counterfactual where the house didn’t appreciate and you move to another one at the original price?

If there had been no appreciation, your final wealth (cash + home equity) would be lower than in the case where the houses are more expensive, even after paying taxes, so it’s hard to see where is the loss.

But of course if you expect prices to go down it’s a good idea to avoid paying taxes on a gain that may be reduced in the future.

> Do you mean “win” compared to the counterfactual where the house has appreciated and you don’t move to a similar one, or compared to the counterfactual where the house didn’t appreciate and you move to another one at the original price?

Either one.

We put a certain intrinsic value on a local lateral move. If the cost of moving is less than that intrinsic value, and we find a house we like, we'll move. If the cost of moving is more than that intrinsic value we'll stay regardless of whether we find a house we like. So the higher prices go, the less likely we are to move. So when prices go up, that removes liquidity from the market, which perversely drives prices up even further and makes the problem worse. So while we're sitting on a pile of equity, we can't actually use it unless we move out of the area, and that has a huge negative intrinsic value for us. We really like it here.

I must say I am thoroughly impressed by your patience. You're repeatedly explaining what seems to me like a pretty simple calculation to lots of different people who only gets it after a lengthy explanation.

It's a first-world problem, but as you say, it's still a problem. Unless you're okay with taking the loss, or just moving somewhere far away because the market decided that this area has now become too expensive to allow existing homeowners to downsize.

Thank you, I'm glad someone noticed that.

I understand your point, but saying that "rising prices are as bad for the owners as they are for everyone else" is hard to justify.

In your case, you can a) stay where you are or b) sell the house, pay the tax, and buy a similar house (or a cheaper one elsewhere).

An alternative you that didn't buy that house at that time, and got lower after-tax returns on that money, doesn't have option a) and has less capital available for option b).

Everyone else is in an strictly worse position than owners.

You have an unrealized capital gain and an unrealized tax liablity. Selling the house you'll realize both. You "feel" that you are not realizing the capital gain if you buy a similar house with that money. It's understandable, nobody likes paying taxes. But if you were to sell the new house in the future (maybe to downsize) the transaction would be tax free if prices don't change.

And as I said already, if you think prices may go down it's rational that you avoid realizing the capital gain and the tax liability at the current level if the utility gain from moving to a "similar" house is not larger than the expected savings of realizing (maybe) a lower capital gain in the future and paying less taxes.

> saying that "rising prices are as bad for the owners as they are for everyone else" is hard to justify.

You're right. I retract that. (Unfortunately, it's too late for me to go back and edit the original comment.)

Let me rephrase: rising prices are not always an unalloyed good even for home owners.