So your 90 year old grandpa has been living in a two bedroom apartment on the lower east side for 65 years. When he moved in at age 25, it was considered a crummy but affordable neighborhood, but now it's expensive and desirable. You want a 90 year old to have to move? I agree that maybe a 65 year old couple no longer needs to be in a 3,000 square foot home, but there are a lot of cases that make this complicated.
And mine is that a lot of (and maybe most) 90 year olds wouldn't need to move. The ones who would be motivated to move are also largely the ones who are wealthy enough to do so.
It's cruel, but that same cruelty is deemed acceptable towards 'have nots'.
If he owns, you'd think that he could sell the two bedroom and downgrade to a one bedroom to keep the monthly cost down. Or even a studio. But at some point it's an incredibly desirable, expensive neighborhood and I'm not sure anyone deserves the privilege to live where they want as long as they want.
He bought the house by working for a living. The "fuck 'em, give me his house" argument isn't convincing me.
Maybe 65 is too young for retirement age, but I certainly feel that there is an age at which old people should start getting special privileges, like the right to not have to move. And the rest of us can wait our turns and hope that we get to take advantage of those privileges some day.
Second, if the neighborhood gentrified around grandpa, his house value has gone up - he can sell at a good profit and use the money for his retirement as he wishes.
Third - consider the counterfactual renter who was living in the same place and working just like grandpa, but had to move at the age of 60 because he couldn't afford the rent anymore. Why does grandpa get to stay but the other person, who is a renter with the same life story get forced out of the neighborhood?
For instance suppose when Grandpa was a young man in 1950 he bought a used 1940 Martin D-45 guitar for a little under $400. That's equivalent to around $4800 in today's money.
He's still got that guitar and has kept it in good shape. Vintage D-45s from 1942 and earlier go for insane amounts on the collector market, and he could sell that for over $100k, probably over $150k.
Why should Grandpa have the privilege of owning a vintage 1940 Martin D-45 as long as he wants when so many other people who would like to play a vintage D-45 cannot afford too despite being working musicians?
Should we therefore have a periodic instrument value tax on musical instruments to keep people from keeping their instruments too long? Grandpa can sell the vintage D-45 and use a fraction of the proceeds to buy a new acoustic guitar or even hire a luthier to build him a custom guitar so its not like having to give up his 1940 D-45 would keep him from having a guitar.
You'll grow older and possibly understand. There are things that must be experienced, they can't be learned in any other way.
