St. Bear
New member
Only taxed on the profit from sale. If I can get a profit to sell my house, I'll happily pay the tax.
-
Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!
You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!
The Future of the Ski Industry
- Thread starter VTKilarney
- Start date
Only taxed on the profit from sale. If I can get a profit to sell my house, I'll happily pay the tax.
steamboat1
New member
1250sq. here. Plenty of room for my wife, daughter & me. We don't even use our finished basement or attic (except for storage, laundry room & extra full bathroom) Mortgage paid & inexpensive real eastate taxes ($3200). Heat in the winter & A/C in summer are still expensive. That's why I love spring & fall, don't need those things.
mbedle
Well-known member
Actually, the average size of a house in 1973 was 1,660 square feet. Today its around 2,700 square feet. What I found interesting is, if you look at a lot of the row homes in Allentown, PA built in the early 1900's, they all appear to be between 1,500 square feet and 2,000 square feet. I'm guessing that they were smaller back than, but people finished off back porches to increase the Kitchen sizes and finished the attics as additional bedrooms.
Smellytele
Well-known member
steamboat1
New member
Geeze my 1250sq. house was built in 1929. Must have been huge back in those days.
mbedle
Well-known member
Interesting, but I wasn't referencing the same thing as your chart. I can see the 1950 size for new homes being true. Look at places like Levittown, PA and NY.
Smellytele
Well-known member
Actually what you were saying is pretty dead on with that.
SkiFanE
New member
It was built in 1969 and for its size it has 4 bedrooms and 2.5 baths, so it really has all the space needed. The upstairs is perfect, the downstairs is just badly arranged - would love to just knock it out and rebuild in same space - otherwise the size would be fine. Within 6x6 ft area at back door is laundry "closet", back door and door to garage all in same place...major clusterfuck at the end of our FR (winter with boots, coats, snowpants...freaking mess..we kick shoes off at door, don't wear in house, so always a pile). Thought when we bought having laundry so close to Living area would be nice..yeah..if dryers and frontloaders didnt make so much damn noise. But we bought for the location, house just was what it was...because in the end...location is the value, not the house.
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
I'd rather have a small house and 20 acres, than a big house and 2 acres.
I'd rather have a small house and an acre, with 19 acres surrounding me preserved as conservation land.
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
That would be awesome. There's actually quite a bit of "State Game Land" in PA where something like that's possible.
spring_mountain_high
New member
i think our definition of wealth may differ, but talk about short-sighted and judgmental...seems like i may have touched the nerve of a do-nothing middle manager...better be careful they don't figure out how useless you are or you'll be on the bread line soon...companies all over, including mine, at my direction, are mercilessly thinning the ranks of your ilk and are much better off for it.
MadMadWorld
Active member
2 acres is more than enough for this guy!
steamboat1
New member
I like living in the NYC in my small house.
What that has to do with the future of the ski industry is beyond me.
What that has to do with the future of the ski industry is beyond me.
mister moose
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2007
- Messages
- 1,088
- Points
- 48
My personal definition of wealth is being able to live on less than you make. What's yours?
As for the rest, I have no idea what you are talking about, none of it is relevant to my prior post, or accurate about me personally. But since you seemed to have missed my point, let me spell it out a little further -
I have met a lot of very wealthy people. Most were hard working people. Only relatively few were trust fund types. Even many of the second or third generation were working every day. I read your prior comment as scoffing at how wealthy people didn't really earn it... Is there some other interpretation?
dlague
Active member
What was this thread about?
.......
.......
Not Sure
Well-known member
Golf and Tennis
dlague
Active member
drjeff
Well-known member
Agree 100%!
Most people who are what society deems "wealthy" earned it, and very often are still putting in lots of hours a week still earning it.
I look at it this way. Personally, I begrudge nobody what they earn. If they have a certain talent or skill set that convinces enough people to pay them some $$ that adds up to lots of $$ earned annually, then great for them. If you've got a trust fund situation where the trust fund baby has no appreciation of what it took to earn that $$ and then they decide to go ahead and "waste" it, well good then for the people who turn the trust fund "waste" into their own enhanced earnings!
All I know is some of my ski friends, who make WAY more $$ than I do via their Wall St. Hedge fund jobs, are some of the most down to earth, great family people who you've ever met.
House wise, my wife and I expanded from 2300 to 3400 8yrs ago. Most of that expansion sq. footage was from the building of an "in law suite" - since when the likely inevitable move in of either one of my parents or my in-laws occurrs, I'm not sure if even a 10,000sq ft house would provide me with enough space to maintain my day to day sanity!! :lol:
Similar threads
