IRS Rumor or Fact?

GEE, I don't even think that is a new thing. Of course, with sales, etc... I don't think they can pull it off but with certain sales, like to relatives, the value the property at its appraised value. So if you sell a $500,000 home to your kids for $10,000, they may have to pay for taxes on the $490,000 as income. AND, of course, the real estate taxes are generally based on appraisers, and they don't care what it sold for.

Steve

It's terribly frustrating to me when people complain that the government doesn't think logically. The government is extremely logical. People just don't understand the logic, and it's usually because they can't look past the question of what's important to them.

Yes. Money is taxed when it changes hands. When you got the money, you were taxed. You gave it to the government for some reason (why?). Now the government is giving it back to you, and you're being taxed again - because the money changed hands.

It's the same reason you're "double-taxed" if you start a corporation. The corporation is not you. When you take money out of the corporation, it changes hands. If you were a sole proprietor, you wouldn't get double-taxed. That double taxation is the price you pay for the protection of the corporate veil.

Start looking at things this way, and you'll begin to understand why large companies operate the way they do. Large companies really, really like to run up whopping great credit balances with one another... because as long as the money doesn't change hands, they don't get taxed on it.

Governments operate this way, too. So just like these big corporations aren't worried about their massive credit balances with other corporations, our government isn't worried about the national debt either.

Not familiar with that study, but let's put it in perspective: the government spent $2.6 million out of $4.4 trillion.

Let's spell that out, shall we?

$2,600,000

out of

$4,400,000,000,000

This is roughly the equivalent of having a six-figure income and losing a nickel. Should that outrage anyone?

Yes, I know, $2.6 million is a lot of money and you sure do wish they had spent it on something you cared about. But to the government, it's tiny, and certainly dwarfed by the cost of several other things they did that you'd be very unhappy not to have. Surely you can let the Asian hookers have a nickel. Who wouldn't give a nickel to an Asian hooker?

Again, out of $4 billion. This is slightly more money, proportionally. It might be shocking. It's like making a hundred thousand a year... and losing TEN DOLLARS.

But let's also put it in perspective.

Latin America has a higher incidence of HIV than any other part of the world. In Argentina, one out of every 200 adults has HIV. To put that in perspective, here in the United States, it's approximately one out of every 600.

The single most common vector of infection is male-on-male sex.

Statistics show that while everyone has impaired judgment and engages in risky behaviour while drunk, gay men are markedly more likely than any other group to engage in risky SEXUAL behaviour rather than any other kind of risky behaviour. (There's no "duh" here. It's an actual mystery.)

Argentina's public health system pays approximately $600,000 in care over the lifetime of an HIV patient.

I would say $400,000 on this study was a pretty good business decision.