[susiecambria]

No answer to the question, but you raise a good point: Americans consider homes an investment.

Years ago when I was doing public policy analysis and advocacy full time, I spent some time thinking about home ownership, being financially and otherwise prepared, understanding the realities of home ownership, and acknowledging ownership is not the only game in town.

Either Fannie or Freddie published a paper about "appropriate" housing options for a person's stage in life. Nothing set in stone, but patterns and priorities.

The paper made the point that not everyone wants the responsibility of owning. These folks have other priorities and don't consider themselves failures by renting. Similarly, families may choose to live with other generations. Some older folks move to rentals, smaller owned homes, or assisted living.

The bee in my bonnet has always been the "I want I should have" mindset. When it comes to housing, it goes like "I want to die in my house." Great if you can afford it - meaning affording maintenance, modifications (ramps, lefts, etc.), skilled and unskilled help, taxes, etc. The rub comes when people can't afford it. Some jurisdictions offer interest-free loans to add ramps, etc.; loans are paid back upon death.

I'm not indifferent to the struggles of aging. But ignoring it does not make it go away. I feel like with the time and energy we put into trying to address affordable housing, for example, we should also pay attention to our individual (and community?) plans for getting older.

Back to the point: In my policy days, hearing stories about how old folks died in their homes and their kids expected a windfall only to find out that the property had to be sold to pay for X, Y, and Z. The house was great collateral but was not a wealth transfer as may have been expected.

Not sure how to balance, accommodate all the competing interests, but what we are doing now is certainly not working.