3 ms·
Because of the expenses (moving, taxes, fees, etc) amount to $400K, you've just spent a lot of effort to replace a more expensive property with cheaper and smal
by romwell 9y ago
Because of the expenses (moving, taxes, fees, etc) amount to $400K, you've just spent a lot of effort to replace a more expensive property with cheaper and smaller one for no gain.
Real-life numbers will differ, but that's roughly the point.
- mbesto 9y agoRight. See my point here about asset transfer fees and the idea of "gain" or "loss" to wealth: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15708206 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15708206 But there is a gain, you just turned an illiquid asset into a liquid asset. The fact that this exchange is even possible is why you are even able to say "its worth $2M" in the first place. If you couldn't turn an illiquid asset into a liquid asset it would be worth nothing, so you neither "gain" nor "lose". Would you rather have that scenario? Lastly - if you see personal value in purchasing a smaller house, wouldn't you expect service providers (agents, movers, etc) to charge you for that value?