News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001% by ipython on Tuesday June 08, 2021 @12:08PM (#27437034)
I agree with your general point, but your specific example of selling highly appreciated real estate is a poor one, since you incur no tax when selling your primary residence (up to something like $500k gain - over your cost basis which includes any capital improvement you made to the property) as long as you lived there for two of the last five years.

It’s a huge tax advantage for homeowners. One could argue that it is in itself unfair as it advantages people who already have large assets over those who do not.

Re:We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001% by nostrademons on Tuesday June 08, 2021 @12:25PM (#27437307)
> (up to something like $500k gain - over your cost basis which includes any capital improvement you made to the property)

In a lot of markets this absolutely hits the "moderately wealthy trying to leave the working class". Bay Area houses that went for $1.2M in 2009 now go for about $3M, for a gain of $1.8M. That's well over the $500K exclusion, even including capital improvements.

Few folks will shed a tear for people who own a $3M house simply by virtue of living in a hot area, but that's exactly who the OP is talking about.

Re:We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001% by whakim on Tuesday June 08, 2021 @03:09PM (#27439479)
In the US, simply owning a house that's worth $3M (and literally zero other assets of any kind) puts you in the top 1.5% of the wealth distribution, per the WID. So I'm not sure how you could classify this scenario as "moderately wealthy trying to leave the working class." More like "extremely wealthy people trying to become even more wealthy."
Re:We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001% by motohagiography on Tuesday June 08, 2021 @12:36PM (#27437459)
The people who live in hot real estate areas for years made them the hot real estate areas. Real estate appreciation isn't free money. It's people who risked moving into an area and brought their culture with them. This is what creates the value.

Just because middle class people benefit from the subsidy of low interest rates that create asset bubbles does not mean that the people who raised families in a neighbourhood or a city are somehow undeserving of the rewards on their equity.

The idea that money not taken in taxes is an "expenditure," or an advantage, and this idea of accounting for the hypothetical opportunity cost of not taking some peoples money as a tax privilege is bizzare.

Re:We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001% by RC_ITR on Tuesday June 08, 2021 @12:54PM (#27437688)
>brought their culture with them.

Yikes. Do you really think places like SOMA, SLU, DTLA, etc. got better because rich people brought their 'culture' there? I'd recommend you visit said places and see for yourself, most of the 'culture' is in adjacent (usually historically minority) neighborhoods.

Re:We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001% by motohagiography on Tuesday June 08, 2021 @03:42PM (#27439831)
Specifically, I said that rich(er) people go to those places because the people who were there before them made those places appealing. Poor(er) people who made due and built a community with businesses and neighboors that attracted others. As for why people who say 'yikes' seem to scare so easily, the concern is noted and ignored.
Re:We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001% by frockington1 on Tuesday June 08, 2021 @02:07PM (#27438710)
In those places there is a huge value difference between the adjacent neighborhoods and the rich neighborhoods. This is primarily due to a culture of stability and safety
Re:We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001% by RC_ITR on Tuesday June 08, 2021 @03:18PM (#27439583)
What are you trying to say? That DTLA is safer/cheaper than Little Tokyo (you're wrong)? That SOMA is safer than the Mission(you're wrong)? That SLU is safer than Capitol Hill(you're wrong)?
Re:We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001% by vineyardmike on Tuesday June 08, 2021 @02:18PM (#27438852)
> in adjacent (usually historically minority) neighborhoods.

These are the people that brought their culture. Their housing is probably also well appreciated.

Re:We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001% by RC_ITR on Tuesday June 08, 2021 @03:14PM (#27439539)
It's amazing how often people on HN think that working class minorities have equal access to owning their own homes, despite huge evidence to the contrary.

https://usafacts.org/articles/homeownership-rates-by-race/

Re:We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001% by ineptech on Tuesday June 08, 2021 @02:24PM (#27438917)
"Well, this tax might still hit someone at the upper-upper-end of the middle class if they live in the fastest-appreciating real estate market in history" seems equivalent to admitting that it does not hit the middle class generally.
Re:We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001% by HPsquared on Tuesday June 08, 2021 @12:40PM (#27437516)
When a person moves house, the proceeds from the sale of the old house are used to buy the new house. If someone has lived in an area for a long time, wants to move across the street to an otherwise identical house with the same value, why should they be taxed for that move but not for simply living in the first house?
Re:We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001% by edmundsauto on Tuesday June 08, 2021 @12:42PM (#27437537)
This is exactly what happens. If you buy house #2 within 90 days, you can do a 1031 (I think?) property exchange. Then you don’t pay taxes on the first sale.
Re:We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001% by w4 on Tuesday June 08, 2021 @12:50PM (#27437640)
1031 exchanges are not available to homeowners, they are exclusively available for investment properties. Homeowners receive a $250k/$500k tax shelter as discussed above.
Re:We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001% by TheOtherHobbes on Tuesday June 08, 2021 @02:31PM (#27439013)
And this is why property prices are insane.

Investments of all kind receive generous tax breaks even when they're simple rent seeking.

So you get the triple whammy of unaffordable prices with unaffordable rents with downward pressure on wages - because the rent-seeking behaviour of share holders is privileged over the value of the work that underpins it.

It's not just a recipe for economic disaster for most of the population, it's also a recipe for political instability. In a democracy everyone should feel like the system is working in their interests.

When essentials become unaffordable and pricing becomes punitive and extortionate, people get angry and start to act in insane ways.

Re:We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001% by sp_nster on Tuesday June 08, 2021 @01:02PM (#27437793)
The $250/$500k is a one-time benefit and you will absolutely take advantage of it when you sell your home.

The idea of taxing this "profit" for the home owner would be insane. The investment and re-investment in real-estate drives a big majority of the economy.

I'm for modifying 1031 for investors who rent their properties. \

Re:We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001% by thrwn_frthr_awy on Tuesday June 08, 2021 @02:47PM (#27439227)
For a 1031 exchange you can only exchange an investment property for another investment property. You cannot use it for your primary residence. You have 45 days after close of escrow on your sale to identify up to three properties to purchase. You then have 180 days from close of first property to close one of the three listed.
Re:We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001% by flabbergasted on Tuesday June 08, 2021 @12:44PM (#27437567)
This tax deferment only applies to investment property. As I understand it, if you're living there, then 1031 is not an option for you.
Re:We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001% by ejstronge on Tuesday June 08, 2021 @12:45PM (#27437577)
This is generally only true for investors, not for people who buy real estate for the sole purpose of obtaining lodging
Re:We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001% by jtdev on Tuesday June 08, 2021 @12:15PM (#27437139)
It also encourages liquidity in the residential real estate market… which seems to be a net good thing.