kumquat
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Run it by a good X-border accountant or tax lawyer.
In 2011, the rate reverts to 55%, unless the government decides to extend the tax break. There are ways around this with Canadian Corporations and trusts though.They did: Estate tax in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The issue is quite complex and any interested Canucks can find some information here. As I read it, a Canadian with a $4Million NW and a $500K house in the US would pay 45% of $500K, unless (s)he is clever enough to die in 2010.Since my NW is above the 2011 limit by quite a bit, I won't own any US assets after 2010, much as I would like to.
Know how you feel about the snow. We are in Arizona now-beautiful. But in the long run climate wasn't enough for us. Sitting around for extended periods just for the weather seems lame. Always time to do that when we are "old". Several great developments in Canmore but most very expensive. Quality single detached homes start at around $1.5 million. Ouch.Interesting choice. Mountains, low taxes, chinooks. I love mountains and did love skiing, but my wife does not lean that way. 50 years of battling Ottawa winters has us fed up with snow of any description.
Canmore Station pops up on a search of the town. Looks like an interesting development.
Maintenance was half of what the rent makes each month, so I guess there`s earnings made if proper research is done, instead of losing money.
I didn't say that all second homes are money pits. I said that second homes that sit idle are money pits. And of course, some people are happy to own a money pit. But you can't own a money pit and be LBYM at the same time.
This is simply not true. I own a second home, it sits idle most of the time (was used less than 50 nights last year), and I still spent only about 10% of my gross income. Even with a third home I would live beneath my means, and I currently have in storage all the furnishings for a third home, which probably will be acquired later this year.
I could retire tomorrow morning if I wanted to.
Won't be apologizing for my success in life. My point was that it's absurd to claim that the expense of ANY item precludes "living below one's means" without consideration of what those means might be. There is a middle-class orientation on this board, clearly. But the reality is that high earners who spend little relative to their means are every bit as thrifty as middle-class folks in their RVs. I know people -- and I'm not one of them -- who spend millions a year on themselves and yet continue to accumulate riches because they earn ten times what they spend.
Won't be apologizing for my success in life. My point was that it's absurd to claim that the expense of ANY item precludes "living below one's means" without consideration of what those means might be. There is a middle-class orientation on this board, clearly. But the reality is that high earners who spend little relative to their means are every bit as thrifty as middle-class folks in their RVs. I know people -- and I'm not one of them -- who spend millions a year on themselves and yet continue to accumulate riches because they earn ten times what they spend.
I suppose technically that would be thrifty. But it isn't impressive. My personal feeling is if someone can spend millions a year on themselves and still accumulate riches they have a moral duty to be philanthropic.
Frankly, if this were the case for me -- especially if I didn't rent it out for income when I wasn't using it -- it seems like it would be much more cost-effective to use vacation rentals. Plus you'd have the advantage of being able to vacation anywhere you wanted instead of being tied to a single location.This is simply not true. I own a second home, it sits idle most of the time (was used less than 50 nights last year), and I still spent only about 10% of my gross income. Even with a third home I would live beneath my means, and I currently have in storage all the furnishings for a third home, which probably will be acquired later this year.
I think this way sometimes but for now I am sticking with my second home. It is less than 90 minutes away (I can go down for the day or for weekends and guests don't find coming a hassle) and it feels like being in a resort (comfort, beautiful views). We built it 17 years ago and expect that we may sell it in about 10 unless the kids/grandkids make heavy use of it.Frankly, if this were the case for me -- especially if I didn't rent it out for income when I wasn't using it -- it seems like it would be much more cost-effective to use vacation rentals. Plus you'd have the advantage of being able to vacation anywhere you wanted instead of being tied to a single location.
Sorry, but not so. This would mean that Bill Gates’ 66000 SQ house is “thrifty” because he has billions and lives beneath his means. It is instead a public display of opulence and conspicuous consumption.My point was that it's absurd to claim that the expense of ANY item precludes "living below one's means" without consideration of what those means might be. There is a middle-class orientation on this board, clearly
But the reality is that high earners who spend little relative to their means are every bit as thrifty as middle-class folks in their RVs. I know people -- and I'm not one of them -- who spend millions a year on themselves and yet continue to accumulate riches because they earn ten times what they spend.
Frankly, if this were the case for me -- especially if I didn't rent it out for income when I wasn't using it -- it seems like it would be much more cost-effective to use vacation rentals. Plus you'd have the advantage of being able to vacation anywhere you wanted instead of being tied to a single location.
I think this way sometimes but for now I am sticking with my second home. It is less than 90 minutes away (I can go down for the day or for weekends and guests don't find coming a hassle) and it feels like being in a resort (comfort, beautiful views). We built it 17 years ago and expect that we may sell it in about 10 unless the kids/grandkids make heavy use of it.
True.SEC Lawyer, you are entitled to and owe no apologies for your second and third homes.
And yes, this board leans toward less expensive lifestyles. Nonetheless, a second home that sits idle much of the year is a luxury.
I agree. The real estate market needs the boost and hiring the services to maintain all those places will provide employment for many middle class types.Now I realize SEC Lawyer does need two vacation homes. Have at it, I say. I have a friend who has four vacation homes, so go for five!