News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The Shock of Sweden's Housing Market Is Hitting the Count... by lisper on Wednesday November 15, 2017 @12:05PM (#15705326)
Suppose we bought our house for $1M and now it's worth $2M. We have to pay 25% cap gains (federal + state) on $500k so it costs us $125k to move to a house of equal value. If prices were stable, we could move without taking that hit. The higher prices go, the higher the cost of moving.
Re:The Shock of Sweden's Housing Market Is Hitting the Count... by tostitos1979 on Wednesday November 15, 2017 @12:16PM (#15705424)
You are better off unless you bought the large house for cash. Otherwise, you made a big gain in leveraged terms.
Re:The Shock of Sweden's Housing Market Is Hitting the Count... by lisper on Wednesday November 15, 2017 @12:28PM (#15705555)
What you say is true, but it misses the point, which is that big gains only help you if you actually cash out. If you're making a lateral move, or downsizing in the same area, it doesn't matter whether you're leveraged or not. A loss is still a loss.
Re:The Shock of Sweden's Housing Market Is Hitting the Count... by coderholic on Wednesday November 15, 2017 @01:02PM (#15705974)
The example is useful, thanks. I see that there's $125k of cap gains to pay for a move to a property of the same price. You're calling that a loss though, and I'm not sure I see it that way. Sure, if house prices hadn't gone up you could have moved from a $1M house to another $1M house and paid nothing. But in your example you're still $875k "in profit", so it's not really a loss, it's just a cost associated with a lateral move in the same area. If you downsize you actually realize some of those gains - of course not all of them because tax must be paid, but there's no avoiding taxes :)