|
One out of ten isn’t a lot, but when the employer is a large as the IRS, 10% of 2000 rehires (over a fifteen month period) is 200 employees rehired despite having been fired for cause. Why would they do that?
Via Instapundit.
1 Comment
Antiplanner has an interesting new post about the cost of new housing that focuses on lovely Buckeye, Arizona. His thesis, of course, is that with lower regulation comes lower-cost new housing.
DR Horton, the builder whose project is discussed in Antiplanner’s post, does seem to have a formula for building fairly large houses on modest-sized (but not tiny) lots at very competitive prices. They just built a subdivision not far from my house, on an infill parcel, that fits that profile. Admittedly, it’s not in the most fashionable location, but the pricing looked to me to be pretty competitive with new houses in much less desirable, outlying, locations (like Buckeye). Environmental problems are related to real estate, so maybe it’s not too off topic, but anyway it seems like important news: the extensive reporting on the problems with the municipal water utility in Flint, Michigan, appears to have been unnecessarily alarmist. In other words, the presence of lead in that city’s water supply is not the public health disaster that it’s been made out to be.
I DON’T THINK I HAVE EVER PATRONIZED A RUBY TUESDAY RESTAURANT, AND I DON’T THINK I WILL START NOW7/19/2018 Why? Because they’re bullies.
I have wondered if they got permission from the Rolling Stones for that name. Unfortunately this story doesn’t answer that question. Via Overlawyered. I’m not endorsing it, but an IRS official supposedly has. It’s a strategy for making Roth IRA contributions indirectly, by first contributing to a conventional IRA, then converting the conventional IRA to a Roth IRA, as a means of avoiding the income limit for contributions to Roth IRAs. The details are in a Forbes article posted last week.
Via TaxProf. I didn’t spend much time trying to absorb the details of this story so I can’t say for sure, but it sounds to me like people in Philadelphia have figured out how to game the system by which property owners receive notice of delinquent property tax foreclosures.
It also sounds like the scammers are selling the properties to which they have fraudulently obtained title to innocent buyers who are not getting title insurance. Don’t do that. I mean, don’t buy property without title insurance. That should be the simple way for buyers to avoid being victims of this scam. I’m not sure there’s an easy fix for the owner who lost the property in the property tax foreclosure, however. The United States Supreme Court has been made up of nine justices since 1869. The law that makes it so is in “an Act to amend the Judicial System of the United States,” adopted by the United States Congress on April 10, 1869. The citation is 16 Stat. 44, which contains Chapter 22 of laws of the Forty-First Congress.
It took me about fifteen minutes to find a copy of the actual government record. Authoritative information is readily available, so don’t believe what anyone says just because it sounds like they know what they’re talking about. According to the Daily Star, the City of Tucson has been “less than forthcoming regarding details” of a streetcar derailment last week. Well, of course they want to keep it quiet. It might be bad PR.
But why isn’t the local alternative weekly all over city officials for being less than forthcoming? Could it be that they also don’t want a project that aligns with their ideology to get any bad PR? Apparently even the Star didn’t report the incident until a week after it happened. At least one opinionator thinks it’s the latter:
“tax evasion is pervasive among the rich, deserving athletes or idle rentiers alike. Why? Not because they are evil people or impervious to the consequences of their actions, but because they are wooed by a global tax evasion industry….” That’s from a New York Times editorial, quoted at the TaxProf Blog. Remember, claiming that you don’t have to pay federal income tax is only going to get you in trouble. Just ask the IRS. I will say it again: you can’t prohibit speech just because someone finds it offensive. Even if (maybe especially if) that someone is a police officer.
|
AuthorThe contents of this blog, this web site, and any writings by me that are linked here, are all my personal commentary. None of it is intended to be legal advice for your situation. Archives
March 2023
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed