California has laws to break up wealth on inheritance. My understanding is in some cases you aren’t allowed to pass down certain property to your kids. Once California pulls this BS, then it spreads like the nasty libbie virus that it is.
Our last house was bought from an older widow. We didn't know at the time we first expressed interest in it, but she was friends with several families that we knew. If she and her husband had been in better health we probably would have known them from running in the same circles for a year or so while we were renting in the area. About a week before closing she called us and let us know that she was having trouble getting all her stuff out and asked if we would mind just taking care of it for her. We were willing to do it just to help her, but turned out to be amazing for us. We didn't have to buy all the little stuff when we moved in, just moved in and there was already toilet paper, and extra light bulbs, and enough plastic wrap that we didn't have to buy any for ten years. I highly recommend it to anyone who is buying their first home.
There are a few things that boomers need to answer for. One thing that boomers need to answer for, in my opinion, is an unwillingness to change Social Security to keep it solvent. We've known since the 1980's that people were living longer and taking more money out of the system than they put in, but no one has done anything to fix the problem. Boomers have always been at the forefront protecting "what they earned", even if what they think they earned and what they actually earned are two different things. Everyone knows that people are living longer, and no one wants to work longer or pay more in, or take less out. No one in Congress has the courage to change SS. Boomers do not seem very capable of dealing with this issue like grownups. They have noticed that company pensions have gone away, and that they have a real need to save more for retirement, yet over half of them have saved little or nothing. Another is global warming. Boomers (not all, but most) are highly addicted to their cars, and feel they have a right to drive whatever they want to, regardless of whatever mileage they get. They love horsepower, and they love big vehicles. (This is not limited to just the boomers, as younger generations have picked up on the addiction, but boomers seem to have led the way, often in the face of evidence that what they are doing is harmful.) They will fight tooth-and-nail to for the right to drive a gas guzzler, and they will fight any attempt to raise the gas tax, even if: oil production in the U.S. had peaked (1970) and we become dependent on foreign oil; the cost to maintain the highways has increased since 1992 but the gas tax has not; and oil is a finite natural resource. They are entitled to get what they want, and to hell with the grandchildren who are stuck paying the bill. Again, they (collectively) can't think like grownups on this issue.
Social Security was fixed in the 1980s to project out till 2041. It was supposed to build up surpluses while the baby boomers were working. It did so but the surpluses were used for tax cuts.
Curious how a boomer should “answer” for what you mentioned? How will you separate those that did what you say and those that didn’t and drive EVs or 4 cylinder vehicles as one example? Is there some form of punishment you would like to see?
can you link to that, because this says: California Inheritance Laws: What You Should Know - SmartAsset | SmartAsset
I don't see a "punishment" necessarily, but boomers should be educated to address these problems and stop fighting the solutions that are available. For the ones that did not save for retirement, they are probably being punished enough. There are many boomers who do drive small vehicles, as I alluded to. Gun control is another hot button issue that affects boomers to a greater extent than other generations. The biggest problem is that the U.S. seems intent on electing representatives to Congress that represent the worst aspects of America (i.e., the ability to sling insults and accusations) with little ability or even interest in solving problems. Sadly, MTG and Boebert represent the nastiest part of America and have no interest in making America better, other than to get rid of people they don't like. But we the people keep putting them back in office.
I did some research and came up with an identical result. Although I do not think the specific legislation has been proposed much less enacted I think he may have read an article regarding the inheritance of water rights in California and conflated it with inheritance in general. Under the states bizarre system water rights pass indefinitely with a property with the net effect favoring upstream agricultural users over residential users. It’s time to reform California’s inherited water rights: Editorial – Daily News The time has come to reform California’s agricultural prior-appropriation water rights to serve the common good. The sixth-generation Bay Delta farmer who floods his fields to grow wonderful rice will claim the right to do as his ancestors did, granted by the 19th-century California Supreme Court. The fourth-generation Imperial Valley alfalfa grower — whose rights are somewhat different than the Delta’s, under the seven-state Colorado River System — will laud his hay’s livestock-fueling aspects, though it is exported to feed cattle in China and even the United Arab Emirates.
Here's a piece from Brookings on the intended effect of the 1983 reforms. They were supposed to provide 75 years of solvency. Currently it will be problematic in 2034, when Social Security is projected to only fund 80% of its obligations. And of course, those that want to cut it state that it must be self-sustaining, despite the fact that the surpluses were used for tax cuts for the last 50 years. Kevin Drum has written before that it would not take that much of an increase to ensure full solvency as long as we can project Social Security: Today’s financing challenge is at least double what it was in 1983 | Brookings
Can’t argue about elected officials. Sad state of affairs. Every problem/issue can be solved if we’d just start the process. If it’s painful then do it slowly. As I’ve gotten older I’ve become more left leaning on the environment. Still steadfast on gun rights. Abortion is one I’m still trying to figure out as to how to address it for both sides. I try not to judge and let the God I believe in do that. Probably less prejudiced than most older white guys as I was raised with blacks who became my friends starting at age 5. I also have a biracial granddaughter who is the bomb. As to retirement, I gave up two high paying jobs for a good pension. I also saved to supplement my pension. My SS is less than $300 a month and should it stop I’ll be just fine without it. I chose to make sure my wife and I were ok in retirements. Those that didn’t save will not get my sympathy with exceptions.
The problem with politics is that people hate the other team more than they like their own country. They don't think the job of making laws has any value (especially if there is compromise involved), so the top priority is getting your team more popular than the other team so they can dictate how the country is run and make the other team eat it.
It's cheaper to keep my mother in an oversized house on a half an acre than downsizing. We are looking at options to keep her there. Already have maid and lawn service. Moving her would triple her monthly housing costs. She is fine financially. But it makes little sense to move her the way current laws are set up.
Ironically, we did the reverse at about that time. Our old house in SFla has doubled in price, but our cheaper Tampa house has done almost the same. For the record my millennial son just bought a house that costs far more than mine. It's expensive most everywhere. Based on this thread I guess my 88 yr old MIL (not a boomer) should sell her house and acre lot. I've certainly suggested it, but she ain't budging. and it's totally her call.
legislation seems to be gaining momentum to get investors out of single family homes. Wall Street Has Spent Billions Buying Homes. A Crackdown Is Looming. (msn.com) Wall Street went on a home-buying spree. Now, more lawmakers want to stop it from ever happening again. Democrats in the U.S. Senate and House have sponsored legislation that would force large owners of single-family homes to sell houses to family buyers. A Republican’s bill in the Ohio state legislature aims to drive out institutional owners through heavy taxation. Lawmakers in Nebraska, California, New York, Minnesota and North Carolina are among those proposing similar laws. While homeowner associations for years have sought to stop investors from buying and renting out houses in their neighborhoods, the legislative proposals represent a new effort by elected officials to regulate Wall Street’s appetite for single-family homes. ........................ These lawmakers say that investors that have scooped up hundreds of thousands of houses to rent out are contributing to the dearth of homes for sale and driving up home prices. They argue that investor buying has made it harder for first-time buyers to compete with Wall Street-backed investment firms and their all-cash offers. Investors of all sizes spent billions of dollars buying homes during the pandemic. At the 2022 peak, they bought more than one in every four single-family homes sold, though more recently their activity has slowed as interest rates rose and supply became tighter. Two of the largest home-buying firms, Invitation Homes and AMH, are publicly traded companies, while a number of other companies, backed by private equity, hold portfolios of tens of thousands of homes nationwide.