Housing - Why are smaller houses not being built?
- Thread starter tony1679
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by tony1679
Originally Posted by Ws6
It's almost as if you'd be shocked to know that income tax goes up with income...
Nah, I'm more shocked at "Ws6" driving a CX5.
Stupid sarcastic statements receive stupid sarcastic replies. I'm smarter than you think.
The SN IS a whopping what, decade + old?
Here you are Mr. Bright Guy. Zillow. Use it.
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/110-Sooner-Rd-Shawnee-OK-74804/2083720948_zpid/
There is your $100K new construction @ 1000sf house in "central OK". Let me guess though, you're going to find "problems" with it...in which case I ask you...why not just have your own built?
Actually, that's pretty cool. Not fond of Shawnee, but not complaining. Good find! And yes, I'm aware of Zillow...
Originally Posted by tony1679
Originally Posted by Ws6
It's almost as if you'd be shocked to know that income tax goes up with income...
Nah, I'm more shocked at "Ws6" driving a CX5.
Stupid sarcastic statements receive stupid sarcastic replies. I'm smarter than you think.
The SN IS a whopping what, decade + old?
Here you are Mr. Bright Guy. Zillow. Use it.
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/110-Sooner-Rd-Shawnee-OK-74804/2083720948_zpid/
There is your $100K new construction @ 1000sf house in "central OK". Let me guess though, you're going to find "problems" with it...in which case I ask you...why not just have your own built?
Actually, that's pretty cool. Not fond of Shawnee, but not complaining. Good find! And yes, I'm aware of Zillow...
Originally Posted by Mr Nice
Tony,
If you were my son I would give you the $100K to build your dream house.
Living up to the name I see. Adopt me!
Tony,
If you were my son I would give you the $100K to build your dream house.
Living up to the name I see. Adopt me!
Originally Posted by Linctex
Originally Posted by Ws6
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/110-Sooner-Rd-Shawnee-OK-74804/2083720948_zpid/
There is your $100K new construction @ 1000sf house in "central OK". Let me guess though, you're going to find "problems" with it...in which case I ask you...why not just have your own built?
Wow.... $100 sq foot.
That seems high
Water well, septic, power, and Lot all add in to the "base price" of building ANYTHING,
Regardless of sq foot area
Right. The lower the square footage, (almost always) the higher it costs per square foot. I never understood why people make a big deal about $/ft. It's meaningless.
Originally Posted by Ws6
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/110-Sooner-Rd-Shawnee-OK-74804/2083720948_zpid/
There is your $100K new construction @ 1000sf house in "central OK". Let me guess though, you're going to find "problems" with it...in which case I ask you...why not just have your own built?
Wow.... $100 sq foot.
That seems high
Water well, septic, power, and Lot all add in to the "base price" of building ANYTHING,
Regardless of sq foot area
Right. The lower the square footage, (almost always) the higher it costs per square foot. I never understood why people make a big deal about $/ft. It's meaningless.
Originally Posted by tony1679
Originally Posted by Rmay635703
Originally Posted by pandus13
Warning:
regulating the property owning didn't work really well in some lands far far away. I lived through it, and it ain't pretty.
Property ownership is likely far more regulated here than wherever you came from.
The proper way to prevent a couple slumlords from buying up 1/3 + of property in an area (as has happened here) is to simply tax them more than individuals who own and live in their own home.
Sadly we do the opposite and incentivize large property blocks rented under corporate ownership and decentivize individual ownership by allowing corporate owners to negotiate their property taxes and turn around and write off depreciation further lowering tax.
Sounds right. Pay your part. I don't want to pay a lot, therefore I don't want a lot of house. How does this not make sense?
I feel with each property you own after one, your tax rate goes up X%. The more you "make" the more you pay. No exceptions. But this apparently associates me with Marx, even though I lean far right and am extremely anti-regulation and anti-overreach. Interesting.
No, you're not.
Originally Posted by Rmay635703
Originally Posted by pandus13
Warning:
regulating the property owning didn't work really well in some lands far far away. I lived through it, and it ain't pretty.
Property ownership is likely far more regulated here than wherever you came from.
The proper way to prevent a couple slumlords from buying up 1/3 + of property in an area (as has happened here) is to simply tax them more than individuals who own and live in their own home.
Sadly we do the opposite and incentivize large property blocks rented under corporate ownership and decentivize individual ownership by allowing corporate owners to negotiate their property taxes and turn around and write off depreciation further lowering tax.
Sounds right. Pay your part. I don't want to pay a lot, therefore I don't want a lot of house. How does this not make sense?
I feel with each property you own after one, your tax rate goes up X%. The more you "make" the more you pay. No exceptions. But this apparently associates me with Marx, even though I lean far right and am extremely anti-regulation and anti-overreach. Interesting.
No, you're not.
Originally Posted by Jarlaxle
Originally Posted by tony1679
Originally Posted by Rmay635703
Originally Posted by pandus13
Warning:
regulating the property owning didn't work really well in some lands far far away. I lived through it, and it ain't pretty.
Property ownership is likely far more regulated here than wherever you came from.
The proper way to prevent a couple slumlords from buying up 1/3 + of property in an area (as has happened here) is to simply tax them more than individuals who own and live in their own home.
Sadly we do the opposite and incentivize large property blocks rented under corporate ownership and decentivize individual ownership by allowing corporate owners to negotiate their property taxes and turn around and write off depreciation further lowering tax.
Sounds right. Pay your part. I don't want to pay a lot, therefore I don't want a lot of house. How does this not make sense?
I feel with each property you own after one, your tax rate goes up X%. The more you "make" the more you pay. No exceptions. But this apparently associates me with Marx, even though I lean far right and am extremely anti-regulation and anti-overreach. Interesting.
No, you're not.
Riiiiiiggggghhhhhhht. Now you've met me and know my SSN too?
Originally Posted by tony1679
Originally Posted by Rmay635703
Originally Posted by pandus13
Warning:
regulating the property owning didn't work really well in some lands far far away. I lived through it, and it ain't pretty.
Property ownership is likely far more regulated here than wherever you came from.
The proper way to prevent a couple slumlords from buying up 1/3 + of property in an area (as has happened here) is to simply tax them more than individuals who own and live in their own home.
Sadly we do the opposite and incentivize large property blocks rented under corporate ownership and decentivize individual ownership by allowing corporate owners to negotiate their property taxes and turn around and write off depreciation further lowering tax.
Sounds right. Pay your part. I don't want to pay a lot, therefore I don't want a lot of house. How does this not make sense?
I feel with each property you own after one, your tax rate goes up X%. The more you "make" the more you pay. No exceptions. But this apparently associates me with Marx, even though I lean far right and am extremely anti-regulation and anti-overreach. Interesting.
No, you're not.
Riiiiiiggggghhhhhhht. Now you've met me and know my SSN too?
Originally Posted by alarmguy
Builders are in business to make money, they build the style home that will sell the fastest at the best profit.
Its that simple.
a reason you'll never see a 100 acre pig farm next to a 100 story skyscraper.
Builders are in business to make money, they build the style home that will sell the fastest at the best profit.
Its that simple.
a reason you'll never see a 100 acre pig farm next to a 100 story skyscraper.
Originally Posted by tony1679
Originally Posted by Jarlaxle
Originally Posted by tony1679
Sounds right. Pay your part. I don't want to pay a lot, therefore I don't want a lot of house. How does this not make sense?
I feel with each property you own after one, your tax rate goes up X%. The more you "make" the more you pay. No exceptions. But this apparently associates me with Marx, even though I lean far right and am extremely anti-regulation and anti-overreach. Interesting.
No, you're not.
Riiiiiiggggghhhhhhht. Now you've met me and know my SSN too?
I think you missed his point. Your views are not far right, their not anti-regulation and it's a major bit of overreach. It's probably so extreme left that it's probably beyond communism because even Russia, China and Cuba now allow people to own property. You basically claimed one thing but have views that are the exact opposite.
But if we give you the benefit of the doubt, then it's just sour grapes.
Originally Posted by Jarlaxle
Originally Posted by tony1679
Sounds right. Pay your part. I don't want to pay a lot, therefore I don't want a lot of house. How does this not make sense?
I feel with each property you own after one, your tax rate goes up X%. The more you "make" the more you pay. No exceptions. But this apparently associates me with Marx, even though I lean far right and am extremely anti-regulation and anti-overreach. Interesting.
No, you're not.
Riiiiiiggggghhhhhhht. Now you've met me and know my SSN too?
I think you missed his point. Your views are not far right, their not anti-regulation and it's a major bit of overreach. It's probably so extreme left that it's probably beyond communism because even Russia, China and Cuba now allow people to own property. You basically claimed one thing but have views that are the exact opposite.
But if we give you the benefit of the doubt, then it's just sour grapes.
Originally Posted by Wolf359
Originally Posted by tony1679
Originally Posted by Jarlaxle
Originally Posted by tony1679
Sounds right. Pay your part. I don't want to pay a lot, therefore I don't want a lot of house. How does this not make sense?
I feel with each property you own after one, your tax rate goes up X%. The more you "make" the more you pay. No exceptions. But this apparently associates me with Marx, even though I lean far right and am extremely anti-regulation and anti-overreach. Interesting.
No, you're not.
Riiiiiiggggghhhhhhht. Now you've met me and know my SSN too?
I think you missed his point. Your views are not far right, their not anti-regulation and it's a major bit of overreach. It's probably so extreme left that it's probably beyond communism because even Russia, China and Cuba now allow people to own property. You basically claimed one thing but have views that are the exact opposite.
But if we give you the benefit of the doubt, then it's just sour grapes.
Yep, hence my comment about Karl Marx.
Sorry OP, your stated wish of how things should be, is about as far from "I lean far right and am extremely anti-regulation and anti-overreach" as one can get.
OTOH, I am surprised that apparently Jarl and I agree on something.
Originally Posted by tony1679
Originally Posted by Jarlaxle
Originally Posted by tony1679
Sounds right. Pay your part. I don't want to pay a lot, therefore I don't want a lot of house. How does this not make sense?
I feel with each property you own after one, your tax rate goes up X%. The more you "make" the more you pay. No exceptions. But this apparently associates me with Marx, even though I lean far right and am extremely anti-regulation and anti-overreach. Interesting.
No, you're not.
Riiiiiiggggghhhhhhht. Now you've met me and know my SSN too?
I think you missed his point. Your views are not far right, their not anti-regulation and it's a major bit of overreach. It's probably so extreme left that it's probably beyond communism because even Russia, China and Cuba now allow people to own property. You basically claimed one thing but have views that are the exact opposite.
But if we give you the benefit of the doubt, then it's just sour grapes.
Yep, hence my comment about Karl Marx.
Sorry OP, your stated wish of how things should be, is about as far from "I lean far right and am extremely anti-regulation and anti-overreach" as one can get.
OTOH, I am surprised that apparently Jarl and I agree on something.
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted by Vern_in_IL
Originally Posted by alarmguy
Builders are in business to make money, they build the style home that will sell the fastest at the best profit.
Its that simple.
a reason you'll never see a 100 acre pig farm next to a 100 story skyscraper.
But you will see a slum in very close proximity.
Even in the dense NE it doesn't take long to get to less dense countryside and farms. So builders destroy farmland for lookalike homes with poor build quality and no character. Just designed to look big.
Then, when those sell out, they push the "new" bit and destroy the next tract of open farmland or forest. After all, you could go five minutes down the road and get your own new piece of junk, instead of a house that is a few years old and is is now "used" and "old" and "out of date". It's disgusting.
Originally Posted by alarmguy
Builders are in business to make money, they build the style home that will sell the fastest at the best profit.
Its that simple.
a reason you'll never see a 100 acre pig farm next to a 100 story skyscraper.
But you will see a slum in very close proximity.
Even in the dense NE it doesn't take long to get to less dense countryside and farms. So builders destroy farmland for lookalike homes with poor build quality and no character. Just designed to look big.
Then, when those sell out, they push the "new" bit and destroy the next tract of open farmland or forest. After all, you could go five minutes down the road and get your own new piece of junk, instead of a house that is a few years old and is is now "used" and "old" and "out of date". It's disgusting.
- Status
Similar threads
