• phx@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 days ago

    I see the issue here less as “the kids get nothing” and more a concern at where they money ends up.

    Houses get massively inflated over time… Older parents sell, but the money all ends up at some retirement home. Retirement homes are owned by a bunch of hedge funds and/or rich folk. Staff at these places often aren’t paid particularly well either.

    The end result is still higher prices for everyone else, while the rich folk get richer as everything rises into unaffordabilty.

    • MashedTech@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 days ago

      I also see it as a problem of the economy. Their kid, will never be able to afford that house. He will never be able to live in a house like that again. He also got royally screwed.

      Home ownership is a luxury. Reality is being stuck renting. Renting is preventing upwards mobility.

  • Legendz662@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 days ago

    The parents job of providing is up until either 18 or 21 if college is involved, get your own house after that entitled little fucks 😅

    • mlc894@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 days ago

      “And that’s why dad went into the cheap retirement home and doesn’t live with us.”

    • Smaile@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 days ago

      Guess you’ll not have any housing anymore this isn’t owned by a landlord. Hope your swept up in any fallout from your failure of a country.

    • orioler25@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 days ago

      An important thing to consider if we have any chance at shifting the trajectory of shelter insecurity (abolishing property would be better but we can do taxes way more easily). One thing I’d be worried about is any elderly people who wouldn’t be able to afford to pay the property tax to live in their own home. This happens all the time already, and god knows most of them don’t live in a place where property tax raises proportionately to the land value, and we should consider why that’s a problem.

      The elderly are already in a massive blindspot in popular pro-socialized healthcare discourses, and even “developed” healthcare systems struggle to find support and housing for people as they age. If we start using these sorts of indirect eviction tactics as a means of transferring wealth to the younger middle class via affordable property ownership, many of those people will straight up be displaced into deadly living conditions. I can imagine how this sort of system would make us more vulnerable to the state as we ourselves aged.

      Policies like these could easily be used to divert attention from other socialized programs and services that could be improved in a way that generates greater material security more generally, but whose effects would be less immediately apparent to the kinds of people who could even afford an inexpensive house.

      • FlyingCircus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 days ago

        Add the tax but use some of the money to build a shit ton of government housing like the UK did after WWII. Their housing problems only started after they stopped building subsidized housing and started relying on the market (lots of other factors, too, but there is a strong correlation on the timing here).

        • orioler25@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 days ago

          Yes, that is what I’m saying. When I say that this idea of a property tax that is oriented toward increased property value exclusively runs the risk of satisfying more affluent young middle-class people who are really just expressing aggrieved entitlement to the way of life that their parents and grandparents enjoyed.

          A common liberal tactic to disarm broader wealth distribution and social welfare movements is to satiate an element of their criticisms for a substantially powerful group within that movement. Think about how the New Deal disproportionately benefitted white labourers and effectively dissuaded broader socialist and anticapitalist sentiments that had grown in the previous decades, or how queer marriage rights afforded security to property-owning gay men who are now the most conservative-voting queer demographic.

          That there is such a risk of victimizing vulnerable elderly people, a group that has BTW been increasingly devalued since COVID started, means that if this policy satisfies enough voters specifically – which is to say suburbanites – it could effectively disarm the accompanying reforms that recognize the interlinked issues of shelter unaffordability and insecurity, healthcare services, education, and food insecurity while simultaneously normalizing policies that disproportionately harm specific groups. Programs exactly like what you referenced here were eroded by those same means, and the luxury of suburban home ownership itself was an immenseley effective tactic in disarming labour unions in the mid-twentieth-century US.

      • GirthBrooksPLO@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 days ago

        I agree that the elderly are often overlooked in this discussion since so much of the housing discourse revolves around boomers that own property and outright dismissing the fact that a large contingent of them are rolling right into infirmity with just about no retirement.

        I think nursing homes are going to have to function differently in the coming years to accommodate this, and it’s not going to be easy. Breaking apart the current health"care" bureaucracy will free up a lot of medical staff to practice actual medicine rather than just push insurance paperwork, but the lack of people overall will require leveraging of technology to fill the gap. Technology that is currently being used to burn up our aging infrastructure for the benefit of the Epstein class.

        The next few years are going to be filled with grueling work just to ensure we don’t have collapse of social order.

  • SnarkoPolo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    Rather than setting up a reliable inheritance structure, my Silent Gen parents set my brother and me up as joint tenants. The reason, they told me, was “to make it hard to sell the house.” Well, my stepdad left the place a hoarder mess worthy of reality TV, and we still had very little trouble getting a decent chunk of change.

  • Captain Howdy@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    Neither of my parents have any kind of savings at all, they basically only ever made enough to get by. My mom gets a very meager stipend from being a teacher. They both retired this past year and are drawing social security. It’s already really tight for them. I know when they get older I’m gonna have to sell their houses to make sure they have enough money to live on and the medical care they deserve. No idea where they will live at that point. Isn’t America great? Work hard your whole life to struggle to make it when you’re too old to work…

    • Smaile@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      I live with my parent, Iv not had much luck in life job wise so I work min wage job and help my parents so they never end up in a home. Thankfully my girlfriend understand why I’m doing this so I don’t have to stress about that.

    • bskm@feddit.nu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 days ago

      Will have to do the same in a couple of years. Both parents are retired but my dad got cancer about 10 years before his retirement, so he basically didn’t have an income during that time. They are now unable to move since they are both too old, so it’s going to be me and my brother handling that when the time comes.

    • Gold_E_Lox@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 days ago

      this is culture war garbage, i imagine your working class boomer grand / parents are not to blame for the failing of the state.

      this has been and always will be an issue stemming from class, economic structure and social stratification.

      • BeardededSquidward@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 days ago

        I’ll throw in an argument that a lot of that generation are either unable or unwilling to understand the plight of their offspring and why they don’t just do better. There is a lot of intra-generational sabotage amongst them as well. I would like to see numbers of men with successful retirement to women, especially given the power disparities in that generation, early on in particular. There’s a lot of not undeserved angst for them, but a lot of them were also screwed over the by rich and those who pretend they are.

    • GirthBrooksPLO@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 days ago

      God forbid parents do better than the bare minimum when committing to one of the biggest decisions in a human beings life.

    • OldChicoAle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 days ago

      You do realize that generational wealth has been a thing forever right? You’re not making some amazing gotcha point here.

  • Dalkor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    Id just count my blessings that my parents can take care of themselves in retirement and beyond and not have to count on family to come in and take care of them, which is an unfortunate truth for a lot of families in the states.

    I dont expect shit, and it almost seems morally bankrupt to expect a generational handout. You get something or you dont, thats life.

    • GirthBrooksPLO@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 days ago

      I agree with your point with the corollary that if they make that choice, they had better not come knocking on my door if they run into trouble.

    • Net_Runner :~$@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 days ago

      Oh yeah, the morally bankrupt part is expecting your parents to care about you beyond their passing. That’s the thing that’s wrong, yeah.

      Fucking stupid conservative

    • wabasso@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 days ago

      I agree it’s a blessing to have your parents be financially independent into their later years. I do think there’s a generational disparity. I don’t think there’s an obligation for parents to pass on some early inheritance, but I just can’t imagine letting my kids face a lower standard of living assuming their career paths and lifestyles were similar. It’s not their fault our leaders and elite have designed a system that reducing the quality of housing and cities while making them more expensive (IMO).

      Maybe I’ll feel different when I’m older and I think everything they do is wasteful or something?

      • Dalkor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 days ago

        I can agree to most of that.

        To clarify, what’s morally decrepit is someone passing judgement on an expectation thats the result of distilling down the richness and complexity of a relationship to something transactional and material, so devoid of empathy and compassion.

        The truth is that the OP meme is meant to point out how a kid is being slighted because there MAY not be a transfer of wealth. We have no idea how wealthy the parents are, whether they are spite spending it, whether they didnt have retirement saved up and couldn’t afford the house and viewed it as their retirement. I agree that it’s admirable to want to and then to actually leave wealth to your children. But the expectation is repugnant.

        • wabasso@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 days ago

          I think we’re on the same page because I was more replying to you than the OP. I think the meme is a bit extreme and that was either the joke, or it’s specifically crafted to piss of both sides of the aisle, like so much content today.

    • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 days ago

      My mother owns a house and I’d be fucked if I inherited it. Just the property taxes, insurance and utility bills for it come to over $30K a year which is more than I even make (before income tax) as a school bus driver. Selling it would require a lot of repairs first which I couldn’t afford. In theory you can sell the house for its book value less the cost of these repairs, but in my township you’re legally required to fix some things before a sale can even be approved (e.g. replacement of the entire sewer line out to the street). I could maybe rent it, but typical rents here would barely cover the expenses even assuming the tenant doesn’t trash the place.

    • cannedtuna@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 days ago

      Idk. Grandparents owned a really nice home I had fond memories of. They actually didn’t sell it, they lost it. Turns out if you just pay the mortgage by remortgaging the property multiple times that maybe isn’t a good idea. Place had serious issues, but I would have tried to buy it, had I the money at the time, before it went up for auction. Property alone was worth quite a bit due to the neighborhood. Most properties in that neighborhood now go for 1-2 mil.

    • Rooster326@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 days ago

      How?

      Unless it’s a mobile home on leased land, or you live somewhere property, and land aren’t valued as assets.

      You can always sell it …

      • night_petal@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 days ago

        Taxes, maintenance, upkeep, utilities etc. Legally, I can’t sell it for some time as that is part of the will.

        • wabasso@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 days ago

          Can you take out debt against it to pay for those things? If you’re net negative while it’s in your possession then the math should work out if you can extract some of its future sale price against its current cost.

          • AdolfSchmitler@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 days ago

            People buy houses all the time they can’t afford. Hidden costs, thinking taxes and insurance won’t shoot up, depending on the size might cost and arm and a leg to heat/cool.

            There’s even a term called “house poor” when you buy a house but don’t have the money to furnish it so you just have big empty rooms.

            • Entertainmeonly@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 days ago

              You said the house was ruining you but that’s not true. What’s ruining you is the condition of the contract you accepted in order to obtain said house. The meme is about selfish parents pulling the ladder up. Not conditions set on an individual that is subject to them alone.

    • jj4211@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 days ago

      Yeah, it’s one thing if it’s in a nice location and well maintained…

      But good chance it’s got some serious issues because they haven’t fixed anything in decades and no one wants to live there, so you might be 50k in the hole for things before you can even show it to serious prospects…

      Or take the hit and sell it as-is to some crappy company that will probably underpay by 200-400k dollars, even accounting for all the “repairs” (probably just blast everything with paint and hope to sell it to some sucker that doesn’t take the potential problems seriously).

  • Bane_Killgrind@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    My ex has a friend that owns farmland in the greenbelt around here… It came up in conversation what they will do with the business when the folks kick it. None of the kids want to maintain ownership so they will probably sell it 💀 indeed. Just borrow against your asset, so it can stay in the family and you don’t have every single generation starting from fucking zero

  • lechekaflan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    I refused offers to emigrate years ago, the people trying to sell me the idea think I’m better off there… use my brains for the money.

    Now, looking at what’s going on, I think my hunches were right, but nonetheless each day I watch the horror continuing to unfold in America.