Personal Finance
What it would cost to live like the ‘Home Alone’ family today
Home Alone (1990)
20th Century Fox
The classic Christmas movie “Home Alone” tells the improbable tale of a family who leaves their 8-year-old son home when they leave for vacation.
Yet in the years since the 1990 film was released, viewers have focused on another question — how wealthy was the fictitious McCallister family featured in the movie?
The family orders 10 pizzas on the eve of their trip, lives in a house that can sleep 15 people (including extended family) and all fly to Paris for the Christmas holiday.
“They’re well off and in a good place financially,” Cody Garrett, a certified financial planner, owner and financial planner at Measure Twice Financial in Houston, said of the first impression of the McCallisters’ circumstances.
But the family may not be quite as wealthy as they seem, Garrett said.
To better understand the details of the McCallister family’s financial circumstances, Garrett recently did a deep dive analysis of the family’s finances from “Home Alone” and “Home Alone 2: Lost in New York,” which debuted in late 1992, and hosted a webinar with around 25 financial planners to discuss financial planning opportunities that arise in the movies.
Both movies were shot long before social media made it popular to flaunt personal wealth online. Nevertheless, the lifestyle the McCallister family shows to the world may not necessarily be an indication of their wealth, Garrett said.
“There’s a lot of things that are showing that they spent a lot of money, or at least financed a lavish lifestyle to the public,” Garrett said. “But inside their own home, they’re actually maybe a little scared about money.”
What the McCallister lifestyle would be worth now
The Home Alone Experience created by Disney+, opens in London, offering an immersive experience inspired by the Christmas movie, with set recreations of the McCallister family’s home.
David Parry Media Assignments | PA Wire | AP
What looked lavish more than 30 years ago when the first two movies were shot is now even more luxurious today, thanks in large part to the effects of inflation.
The actual five-bedroom, six-bathroom Winnetka, Illinois, home where the movie was filmed was listed for $5.25 million in the spring. Today, it is still under contract, and a final sale price won’t be known until the deal is finalized, according to Zillow spokesperson Matt Kreamer.
To buy the house at $5.25 million today would cost approximately $34,000 per month, with principal, interest and property taxes, according to Kreamer. That’s with 20% down and a 7% mortgage rate.
To comfortably afford the home, you would need $100,000 per month in income, assuming you’re adhering to an affordability threshold of not spending more than one-third of your income on housing costs, Kreamer said.
“It’s a pretty spectacular house, and certainly one of the more famous movie homes that people can instantly recognize,” Kreamer said.
In 1990 when the first movie debuted, the home would have likely been worth a little less than $1 million, Kreamer estimates, which is still high for that time.
Yet the home may not necessarily point to a high net worth for the McCallister movie family.
“I would not be surprised if they don’t have much equity in their house,” Garrett said, given the couple’s stage of life and circumstances.
In the films, the McCallisters are also driving what at the time were relatively new cars — a 1986 Buick Electra Estate Wagon and a 1990 Buick LaSabre — each of which would be valued at $40,000 in today’s dollars, according to Garrett’s estimates.
While the family is eager to show their wealth — including mother Kate paying in cash for the $122.50 pizza bill while also offering a generous tip — they’re frugal when it comes to the things people don’t see, Garrett said.
How the family talks about money can sometimes point to a scarcity mindset, he said. For example, Kate mentions she doesn’t want to waste the family’s milk before they leave on vacation.
The family’s lifestyle isn’t paid for all on their own. Peter’s brother Rob actually foots the cost of the Paris trip for the family. That airfare would cost around $55,650 today, GoBankingRates recently estimated.
What financial planning lessons are hidden in the movie
Many major details about Kate and Peter McCallister’s finances are not disclosed, including what they do for a living.
Nevertheless, the financial planners who evaluated the family’s circumstances saw some holes that could be addressed with planning.
On the top of their wish list: proper insurance coverage.
Because Kate and Peter McCallister have five children, having enough life and disability insurance should they pass away or become unable to work should be a top priority to ensure their dependents are provided for, according to Garrett.
The movie — which includes many slips and falls at the family’s home as 8-year-old Kevin tries to ward off a pair of robbers — also signals a need for an umbrella insurance policy, in case the McCallisters are found liable for injuries or damages that occur.
Kate and Peter — who forget or lose their son Kevin in both of the first two “Home Alone” movies — would also be wise to make proper estate planning arrangements in the event they can no longer provide or care for their children. That includes having wills, powers of attorney, advance directives, beneficiary designations, trusts and proper account titling, all kept up to date.
The couple should name physical and financial guardians who can care for the children. They may also establish a pre-need guardian for the children who can step in if the parents are unable to care for them even for a short period of time, said Aubrey Williams, financial planner at Open Path Financial in Santa Barbara, California.
“If the parents are not there to take care of the kids, there’s the possibility that kids, even if briefly, will become a ward at the state because there’s no one to care for them,” Williams said.
WASHINGTON DC, UNITED STATES – MAY 30: United States President Donald Trump departs at the White House to U.S. Steel’s Irvin Works in West Mifflin, Pennsylvania in Washington D.C May 30, 2025.
Celal Gunes | Anadolu | Getty Images
As the Senate weighs President Donald Trump‘s multi-trillion-dollar spending package, a lesser-known provision tucked into the House-approved bill has pushback from Wall Street.
The House measure, known as Section 899, would allow the U.S. to add a new tax of up to 20% on foreigners with U.S. investments, including multinational companies operating in the U.S.
Some analysts call the provision a “revenge tax” due to its wording. It would apply to foreign entities if their home country imposes “unfair foreign taxes” against U.S. companies, according to the bill.
“Wall Street investors are shocked by [Section] 899 and apparently did not see it coming,” James Lucier, Capital Alpha Partners managing director, wrote in a June 5 analysis.
More from Personal Finance:
The average 401(k) savings rate hit a record high. See if you’re on track
On-time debt payments aren’t a magic fix for your credit score. Here’s why
With ‘above normal’ hurricane forecasts, check your home insurance policy
If enacted as written, the provision could have “significant implications for the asset management industry,” including cross-border income earned by hedge funds, private equity funds and other entities, Ernst & Young wrote on June 2.
Passive investment income could be subject to a higher U.S. withholding tax, as high as 50% in some cases, the company noted. Some analysts worry that could impact future investment.
The Investment Company Institute, which represents the asset management industry serving individual investors, warned in a May 30 statement that the provision is “written in a manner that could limit foreign investment to the U.S.”
But with details pending as the Senate assesses the bill, many experts are still weighing the potential impact — including who could be affected.
Here’s what investors need to know about Section 899.
How the ‘revenge tax’ could work
As drafted, Section 899 would allow the U.S. to hike existing levies for countries with “unfair foreign taxes” by 5% per year, capped at 20%.
Several kinds of tax fall under “unfair foreign taxes,” according to the provision. Those include the undertaxed profits rule, which is associated with part of the global minimum tax negotiated by the Biden administration. The term would also apply to digital services taxes and diverted profits taxes, along with new levies that could arise, according to the bill.
The second part of the measure would expand the so-called base erosion and anti-abuse tax, or BEAT, which aims to prevent corporations from shifting profits abroad to avoid taxes.
“Basically, all businesses that are operating in the U.S. from a foreign headquarters will face that,” said Daniel Bunn, president and CEO of the Tax Foundation. “It’s pretty expansive.”
The retaliatory measures would apply to most wealthy countries from which the U.S. receives direct foreign investment, which could threaten or harm the U.S. economy, according to Bunn’s analysis.
Notably, the proposed taxes don’t apply to U.S. Treasuries or portfolio interest, according to the bill.
‘Strong priority’ for House Republicans
Section 899 still needs Senate approval, and it’s unclear how the provision could change amid alarm from Wall Street.
But the measure has “strong support” from others in the business community, and it’s a “strong priority” for Republican House Ways and Means Committee members, Capital Alpha Partners’ Lucier wrote.
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith, R-Mo., first floated the idea in a May 2023 bill, and has been outspoken, along with other Republicans, against the global minimum tax.
If enacted as drafted, Section 899 could raise an estimated $116 billion over 10 years, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.
That could help fund other priorities in Trump’s mega-bill, and if removed, lawmakers may need to find the revenue elsewhere, Bunn said.
However, House Ways and Means Republicans may ultimately want foreign countries to adjust their tax policies before the new tax is imposed.
“If these countries withdraw these taxes and decide to behave, we will have achieved our goal,” Smith said in a June 4 statement.
With more Americans job hopping in the wake of the Great Resignation, the risk of “forgetting” a 401(k) plan with a previous employer has jumped, recent studies show.
As of 2023, there were 29.2 million left-behind 401(k) accounts holding roughly $1.65 trillion in assets, up 20% from two years earlier, according to the latest data by Capitalize, a fintech firm.
Nearly half of employees leave money in their old plans during work transitions, according to a 2024 report from Vanguard.
However, that can come at a cost.
More from Personal Finance:
Average 401(k) balances drop 3% amid market swings
The average 401(k) savings rate hit a record high
On-time debt payments aren’t a magic fix for your credit score
For starters, 41% of workers are unaware that they are paying 401(k) fees at all, a 2021 survey by the U.S. Government Accountability Office found.
In most cases, 401(k) fees, which can include administrative service costs and fees for investment management, are relatively low, depending on the plan provider.
But there could be additional fees on 401(k) accounts left behind from previous jobs that come with an extra bite.
Fees on forgotten 401(k)s
Jelena Danilovic | Getty Images
Former employees who don’t take their 401(k) with them could be charged an additional fee to maintain those accounts, according to Romi Savova, CEO of PensionBee, an online retirement provider. “If you leave it with the employer, the employer could force the record keeping costs on to you,” she said.
According to PensionBee’s analysis, a $4.55 monthly nonemployee maintenance fee on top of other costs can add up to nearly $18,000 in lost retirement funds over time. Not only does the monthly fee eat into the principal, but workers also lose the compound growth that would have accumulated on the balance, the study found.
Fees on those forgotten 401(k)s can be particularly devastating for long-term savers, said Gil Baumgarten, founder and CEO of Segment Wealth Management in Houston.
That doesn’t necessarily mean it pays to move your balance, he said.
“There are two sides to every story,” he said. “Lost 401(k)s can be problematic, but rolling into a IRA could come with other costs.”
What to do with your old 401(k)
When workers switch jobs, they may be able to move the funds to a new employer-sponsored plan or roll their old 401(k) funds into an individual retirement account, which many people do.
But IRAs typically have higher investment fees than 401(k)s and those rollovers can also cost workers thousands of dollars over decades, according to another study, by The Pew Charitable Trusts, a nonprofit research organization.
Collectively, workers who roll money into IRAs could pay $45.5 billion in extra fees over a hypothetical retirement period of 25 years, Pew estimated.
Another option is to cash out an old 401(k), which is generally considered the least desirable option because of the hefty tax penalty. Even so, Vanguard found 33% of workers do that.
How to find a forgotten 401(k)
While leaving your retirement savings in your former employer’s plan is often the simplest option, the risk of losing track of an old plan has been growing.
Now, 25% of all 401(k) plan assets are left behind or forgotten, according to the most recent data from Capitalize, up from 20% two years prior.
However, thanks to “Secure 2.0,” a slew of measures affecting retirement savers, the Department of Labor created the retirement savings lost and found database to help workers find old retirement plans.
“Ultimately, it can’t really be lost,” Baumgarten said. “Every one of these companies has a responsibility to provide statements.” Often simply updating your contact information can help reconnect you with these records, he advised.
You can also use your Social Security number to track down funds through the National Registry of Unclaimed Retirement Benefits, a private-sector database.
In 2022, a group of large 401(k) plan administrators launched the Portability Services Network.
That consortium works with defined contributor plan rollover specialist Retirement Clearinghouse on auto portability, or the automatic transfer of small-balance 401(k)s. Depending on the plan, employees with up to $7,000 could have their savings automatically transferred into a workplace retirement account with their new employer when they change jobs.
The goal is to consolidate and maintain those retirement savings accounts, rather than cashing them out or risk losing track of them, during employment transitions, according to Mike Shamrell, vice president of thought leadership at Fidelity Investments, the nation’s largest provider of 401(k) plans and a member of the Portability Services Network.
Sending the National Guard to LA is not about stopping rioting
China’s EV race to the bottom leaves a few possible winners
What Pell Grant changes in Trump budget, House tax bill mean for students
New 2023 K-1 instructions stir the CAMT pot for partnerships and corporations
The Essential Practice of Bank and Credit Card Statement Reconciliation
Are American progressives making themselves sad?
-
Blog Post1 week agoCommon Bookkeeping Challenges and Solutions for Small Businesses
-
Economics1 week agoWhy the president must not be lexicographer-in-chief
-
Finance1 week agoThis is why Jamie Dimon is so gloomy on the economy
-
Economics1 week agoAmerica has found a new lever to squeeze foreigners for cash
-
Economics1 week agoWhy would Texas Republicans object to conservative, pro-family developers?
-
Personal Finance1 week agoU.S. birth rate drop outpaces policy response, raising future concerns
-
Accounting1 week agoSteinhoff fraud trial moved to South Africa’s high court
-
Economics1 week agoGerman inflation May 2025