3 ms·
Won't you only pay a % of the gain in price in tax? In that case you're strictly worse if it goes down in price. You'd pay less tax, yes, but as tax is % of gai
by coderholic 9y ago
Won't you only pay a % of the gain in price in tax? In that case you're strictly worse if it goes down in price. You'd pay less tax, yes, but as tax is % of gains you're net worse off. If this really isn't the case can you share some example numbers showing how you can be worse off with a house that's worth more?
- lisper 9y agoSuppose 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.
- tostitos1979 9y agoYou are better off unless you bought the large house for cash. Otherwise, you made a big gain in leveraged terms.
- lisper 9y agoWhat 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.
- coderholic 9y agoThe 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 :)