What do you mean by "is not a real gain"?
Also - a financial instrument based on the value of collateral can easily go south if the value of the collateral falls.
There is no guarantee that home values will remain stable nor that whatever assets you put the loan into will perform adequately too.
Given that retirees typically don’t have the ability to correct for investments gone wrong out of future earnings, your recommendations would be foolhardy for most.
Simply buying a house to live in is fine.
The only reason we are having this discussion is that the people complaining about prop 13 want a mechanism to force older people out of their homes so they can take have them instead.
That's not how a reverse mortgage works: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_mortgage
> The only reason we are having this discussion is that the people complaining about prop 13 want a mechanism to force older people out of their homes so they can take have them instead.
That's just not true. We want baby boomers to pay their fair share of taxes and not squirrel away their wealth for their heirs at our expense. In addition, because of Prop 13 (and similar programs else where) mean OTHER tax payers are paying a higher rate than they need to in order to cover the short fall.
Also, what about all of the other people lives you’d destroy? I live in Oakland in a neighborhood where most homes are either rented, or owned by families that are neither boomers, nor high income tech employees.
Any honest discussion about this has to admit that these are would be hardest hit and their communities decimated so that beneficiaries of the tech boom can buy them out.
You are clearly very emotional about this topic but it's NOT about "techbros" "stealing" property from "poor" retirees on a fixed income.
It’s clear that you don’t care about the consequences to anyone who owns a home other than the ‘Boomers’ who you want to make pay.
I didn’t say ‘tech bros’. But I did mention tech. I stand by that but I agree that it is narrow - It’s a stand in for anyone who is young and in a position to have high future earnings.
It's clear that you are so emotional about this issue that you can't help but personally attack those who disagree with you. Let's leave it here.
You could have actually answered my point about the people who were adversely affected instead doing that.
Instead you chose the intellectually dishonest route.
Let’s leave it there instead shall we?