View Full Version : ABC's Extreme Home Makeover

October 31st, 2005, 10:56 AM
Each week in my home we see Ty Pennington introduce us to another family about to get an extreme home makeover.

Each week, the lady carpenter with the pink sweater and pigtails, who we are supposed to believe actually knows how to use a jigsaw scribbles some lines on a piece of paper and talks about fairies and someone being the cutest little girly-girl or princess.

The gay guy, who is called the "interior designer" - but who, from all appearances, seems to be a Sears sales associate talks about "macking out" the house each week while wearing "fashion" that we can only assume comes from a very down market Sears.

Last night, we saw that Tom Cruise has a brother, who is now on the show and whose big contribution was wearing sleeveless shirts to show off his shapely arms. AND, AND, AND... they found a way to squeeze in Patti LaBelle singing on a flatbed truck. It's all so confusing.

Anyway, here's my question / issue. Each week, these jello brains look into the camera with doey eyes all teared up and state, "this is the most wonderful deserving family". Does that weekly statement supercede the previous week's statement of the same? Are we working our way toward THE MOST AWESOME, SUPER, DESERVING FAMILY EVER IN THE WORLD by the end of the series. :confused: It's something that we watch at home waiting for the declaration of "the most deserving family EVER...." and bust out laughing each time.

October 31st, 2005, 03:53 PM
Things that I cannot understand with this show:

-Why they had to beat Ty to start crying (happened a few months back).
-Why they give these poor people stuff that they really do not NEED! (when was the last time a starving family needed a plasma TV connected to a computer controlled telescope attached to the roof?)
-Why do they have to overproduce it?
-Why couldn't they do a more realistic help show rather than a lottery?
-Why do they call it "makeover" when they pretty much level the house (they used to keep the frame standing and work from there).

I watched it when it started and it was a pretty cool show. But then they started making one multimillion dollar home in the middle of a slum and I had enough.

October 31st, 2005, 08:38 PM
Does the show pay the taxes on all these "freebies"? Or does the tax bill arrive later in the shiny NEW mailbox (taxable)?

November 1st, 2005, 10:47 AM
I'm just somehow mesmerized by the ultimate "F_ _ K YOU!" to the previous week's family whose "most deserved" status is suddenly in free fall.

Wouldn't you like to see them arrive just once and say, "You know what? YOU COULD HAVE BEEN A LITTLE NICER IN LIFE AND A LITTLE LESS SELF-INVOLVED." And then, maybe throw up a pair of ugly orange curtains, stamp on the marigolds out front, and leave, with the bus burning rubber on the pavement out front.

November 1st, 2005, 10:52 AM
Does the show pay the taxes on all these "freebies"? Or does the tax bill arrive later in the shiny NEW mailbox (taxable)?

Yes, I belive the tax bill arrives as you described. It is likely followed by the eviction notice.

Because, hey, who deserves it more?

November 2nd, 2005, 12:07 PM
This show must be a complete windfall for the network ...

Seemingly all construction materials / household items are bartered / traded for "free' advertising time (product placement takes up a good part of the show). So the costs of production to the network are minimal. Plus they get advertising dollars for commercial spots.

And then they saddle the "winner' with a huge tax bill.

Talk about good use of the public air waves :p ...

It would be interesting to follow-up a few months later and see how things stand.

And keep your eyes open for "Lawn Sale" signs (you might get a great deal on some fairly new stainless steel appliances).

November 2nd, 2005, 02:24 PM
It would be interesting to follow-up a few months later and see how things stand.

I was thinking the same thing.....

November 3rd, 2005, 07:54 PM

ABC's 'Extreme Makeover: Home Edition' exploits dubious means to dodge taxes

By Wade Paulsen, 05/11/2004

Notice to politicians crying for more tax money: you might want to start by examining the House of Mouse.

Newsweek reports that Extreme Makeover: Home Edition, which is aired by ABC, a subsidiary of Disney, has been advising contestants to take a questionable interpretation of U.S. federal tax laws on their personal income tax returns. As a result, contestants who have been receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of "makeovers" for appearing on the show have paid no taxes on their gains, even though prizes and awards are considered to be taxable income.

Endemol USA, the producer of Extreme Makeover: Home Edition, which picks cash-strapped families for a seven-day makeover of their homes, styles its 10-day contracts with the families as leases for the use of their houses, with a rental fee of $50,000. Then, according to Newsweek, Endemol pays no cash to the families but claims that the improvements left behind are the "rent" (even if worth more than $50,000) and thus should not be taxable.

More Extreme Makeover: Home Edition News

Endemol's interpretation relies on Section 280A(g) of the Internal Revenue Code, which provides that individuals who rent their residence for fewer than 15 days during a tax year do not have to treat the rent as income but also do not get a deduction for any depreciation related to the rental period. There is little doubt that the provisions of Section 280A(g) apply to Endemol's rental contract -- but there is substantial doubt about whether the entire amount paid by Endemol can be characterized as rental income.

Although the Internal Revenue Code does not expressly define the term "rental income" for this purpose, the term would normally be interpreted to represent the fair value of the rental property. Thus, any excess above the fair rental value would be a prize or award to the owners, which would be taxable in the tax year of receipt. In addition, because the position that the entire amount is rent seems to have so little merit, the owners of the property may be subjected to various penalties, such as a negligence penalty, despite the written opinion provided to them by Endemol.

Newsweek reports that one recipient of an "extreme home makeover," who was deployed in Iraq at the time of the show, was extremely dissatisfied with the quality of the work, which was estimated to be worth up to $250,000, but he was unwilling to complain as long as it was all free. However, if he is audited and assessed additional taxes, he plans to sue Endemol USA. Considering the current turmoil at Endemol, we might advise him not to wait until the last minute to sue....

We note that some individuals in the 2004 U.S. election cycle have claimed that the top individual rates provided in the tax laws need to be increased to "soak the rich" and hopefully increase federal revenues. We tend to believe that the problem isn't that the laws give away too much on the top end but that too many people engage in "creative" tax planning of the type advocated here by Endemol, thus lowering revenues below the level actually mandated by the tax code.

We also note that the IRS is in a no-win situation. If it takes no action, it permits individuals to get away with a dubious tax dodge. If it audits the show's winners, though, it will receive negative publicity for targeting people, such as the person profiled by Newsweek, who served in Iraq and have no savings -- since, after all, the tax burden is borne by the contestants, not by Endemol. However, we believe that the most troubling element of the 1990s tax shelters and tax frauds (such as offshore credit cards for U.S. individuals) was a decline in the belief among Americans that taxes were a shared burden and an increase in the belief that some people can legally evade taxes, despite the Code, or that dubious interpretations are the same as "loopholes" in the tax code.

Is it wrong to support the IRS?

November 3rd, 2005, 11:30 PM
Ahh, show business ...

At its most creative when it comes to accounting.

November 4th, 2005, 12:33 AM
"Give 'em the old Razzle Dazzle"

November 4th, 2005, 11:45 AM
Shouldn't the IRS reword it a bit to consider things such as productions to be responsible for the taxes on any prizes being given under certain categories?

they should really look for a way to make the tax the burden of the giver, not the recipient in some of these things.

Although that can be abused as well.

As for quality of work, they suck., They are rushing through a 7 day 3 shift which builds a SOTA house that would normally take a month or two with plans already drawn up.

That is not taking any decoration into account, just strait white-walls and basic utilities, light fixtures and the like.

So they tear down the old place and throw up a nice looking rush job.

Still, a rush job is better for some of these people than what they were in.

I am waiting for one of them to get the sense to sell the house, and take all the goodies with them. They could get a nice place for the price.

Staying there more than 5 years or so will show the quality of the workmanship....

November 4th, 2005, 12:22 PM
I always love how they paint of the 6th day and then are throwing stuff on the shelves & walls right away.

I guess the new home owners don't mind that the vase is stuck to the shelf!

November 4th, 2005, 04:08 PM
I always love how they paint of the 6th day and then are throwing stuff on the shelves & walls right away.

I guess the new home owners don't mind that the vase is stuck to the shelf!

It gives the house a feeling of "permanence"


November 4th, 2005, 04:09 PM
Or is that "Permanance".


November 4th, 2005, 09:30 PM
Or is that "Permanance".

Now you've got me REALLY confused ...

Definition of The Symbol


The name of CoreWave's symbol is The Symbol. It symbolizes symbols. Its constant motion is intended to remind us of the flow of change through permanance and permanance through change. It is intended to remind us to never confuse The Symbol with what it symbolizes. ( http://www.corewave.com/symb-def.htmlx )

The scribe who created Dtr1 made minor additions (Dtr2) to the text to reflect the additional history, and iron out the flaws in their original presentation of Josiah and the permanance of Judah (by implying that the destruction was as a result of the undoing of Josiah's reforms). The subsequent text is known as D. ( http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Documentary_hypothesis )

Gene ( http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/a-z/Gene.asp )


Specifically, a gene is a sequence of nucleotides coding for a protein (or, in some cases, part of a protein). A gene may exist in alternative forms, called alleles. Most genes have existed unaltered for millions of years; genes do not change except in the rare event of mutation.

More generally, a gene is the unit of heredity. Williams defined the gene as "that which segregates and recombines with appreciable frequency."

On this definition, the gene can be any length of chromosome that has sufficient permanance for natural selection to adjust its frequency; it is what Dawkins calls the replicator. This is important because it tells us what it is that adaptations benefit (see levels of organization).


Imterim permenance ( http://www.livejournal.com/users/m1k3tv/4244.html )

I've retired the old blog. This will be my intirim blog untill I can gently massage the basic workings of PHP and get a self owned and maintaned blog. Anybody with afew suggestions let me know. For now LJ is easy enough.

Eva Drewett ( http://www.sculpture.org.uk/images/zoom.jsp?id=000000200323&idx=EvaDrewett&type=current&name=Eva%20Drewett&work=Flight )



The sculpture comprises virtually identical wings but bronze and the other is glass. The bronze wing implies heaviness, proximity, permenance, the need for energy to keep airborne. The glass wing is designed to imply a dreamlike quality, floating, diepersing and, taken a stage further, eventually disappearing. Image and shadow are like a memory and its thought fading away.


The Permanence of Christian Love – part 1 ( http://www.pcaog.org/6_The%20Permanence%20of%20Love%20AM.htm (http://www.pcaog.org/6_The%20Permanence%20of%20Love%20AM.htm) )

TEXT: 1 Corinthians 13.8-12

The perfect contrasted with the imperfect – 13.8
Two illustrations – 13.9-12
o The child contrasted with the adult – 13.9-11
o The mirror contrasted with a personal encounter – 13.12

What is Paul emphasizing? It is what we should be most concerned with in our spiritual life. It is love. (Lead congregation in prayer)

Let us look first point together and ask ourselves why Paul says “Love never fails” v.8…

November 5th, 2005, 01:54 PM
L&O: I thought about you when I copied it there, but went ahead and did it ;)

November 6th, 2005, 02:15 PM
What kind of sound does that make?