The 2017 tax reform from an economic point of view

[Richard-H]

I wish I could have been blessed with an economics class or two taught by Walter E. Williams PhD, long time tenured profession of economics at George Mason University, best selling author, syndicated columnist, and occasional guest talk show host or television commentator.

Dr, Williams, whether on paper, on the radio/TV and I imagine in the classroom, doesn't teach via mind numbing charts, graphs, pointy headed academic language, or high sounding terms used by people who want others to admire them for their superior intellect. He uses familiar imagery, illustrations, logic, reason to drill home important lessons that actually teach economics as a practical subject instead of an academic exercise.

Today I ran across one of my favorite columns of his that has most often been entitled "An Economic Miracle."

He used an amazing illustration of an Adam Smith principle by explaining how no person, group of people, or government would have the insight, knowledge, or ability to stock the average American super market with 10,000+ different items at a price people can afford to buy. It is rather millions of people looking to their own interests that create that miracle. No government would likely have the resources to put a single product on the shelf at the grocery store.

He closed the column with this provocative observation:

If you have doubts about Adam Smith's prediction, ask yourself which areas of our lives are we the most satisfied and those with most complaints. Would they be profit motivated arenas such supermarkets, video or clothing stores, or be nonprofit motivated government-operated arenas such as public schools, postal delivery or motor vehicle registration? By the way, how many of you would be in favor of Congress running our supermarkets?​

Economic Miracle, by Walter E.Williams

The lesson would be very good for the American people to consider when evaluating the merits of the tax reform just passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. There is much criticism of the lion's share of tax relief going to business and industry or as some characterize it: 'the wealthy.' But is that something to criticize? Or commend?

As Dr. Williams would probably say (and may already have), overall, what benefits the people the most? Encouraging a profit motive in commerce and industry? Or the government directing money/resources/opportunity to those demographics that the government decides should have it?

The poll is multiple choice and you can change your answer should you rethink your initial choices

We'll it's obvious that you're intimidated (that means scared) by big words and numbers and stuff like that.

Adam Smith's metaphor above (that's the little story he told about supermarkets), is shallow and meaningless. At best blatantly (that means really, really) false. A simple proof of this is the efficiency (that means how good they are) of the U.S. military. The U.S. military is a government organization - in fact a socialist organization. DO you really think that the U.S. military would have any problem stocking supermarkets if they were allowed to?

But more to the point the reason why the tax reform of 2017 will be a catastrophe (that means really, really bad) for the majority of the American people is explained here:

What's the scariest thing about the tax reform for you Lefties?

(Sorry, but I don't have the time to dumb it down for you)

 

[Slade3200]

Hey Foxy! Check this out:

The Free Market Beats Government Planning Every Time

Excerpt:

The average well-stocked supermarket carries 60,000 to 65,000 different items. Walmart carries about 120,000 different items.

Let’s suppose Congress puts you in total control of getting just one item to a supermarket—say apples. Let’s not make it easy by having the help of apple wholesalers. Thus, you would have to figure out all of the inputs necessary to get apples to your local supermarket.

Let’s look at just a few. You need crates to ship the apples. Count all the inputs necessary to produce crates. There’s wood, but you need saws to cut down trees. The saws are made of steel, so iron ore must be mined, and mining equipment is needed. The workers must have shoes.

The complete list of inputs to get apples to the market comes to a very large, possibly an unknowable, number. Forgetting any one of them, such as spark plugs, would probably mean no apples at your supermarket.

The beauty of market allocation of goods and services, compared with government fiat, is no one person needs to know all that’s necessary to get apples to your supermarket. Free markets, accompanied by free trade, including international free trade, make us richer by economizing on the amount of knowledge or information needed to produce things.

AND, this is without the politics getting involved with the corruption that goes with that.

I also note that the article I linked was back in 2009, the first year of the Obama administration. This one you linked is 2017, the first year of the Trump administration.

I suspect we have a President now who better understands the concept that Dr. Williams is teaching than did President Obama and the people surrounding him.

I worry that Trump doesn’t understand the difference between personal/business debt and our national debt which are completely different things. I heard him talking about it during the campaign and he was acting like they were the same thing. I hope I’m wrong

 

[Brain357]

Eventually, if their house of cards doesn't collapse, their 1.38 billion people will produce more than our 327 million people. But not next year.

The 'house of cards' metaphor is one I can relate to in a discussion like this. But I also look at China's roughly 4 trillion dollar national debt in an economy very close to the size of ours. The USA holds a little over $1 trillion or so of that debt. The USA national debt is over $20 trillion and counting with China holding roughly $1 trillion or so of our debt. So the amount we owe each other is roughly the same, but the USA national debt is four times that of China's.

So when it comes to houses of cards, ours looks a little shakier maybe?

China has a huge pollution mess to clean up.

So have we had huge pollution messes to clean up, but prosperity tends to give people the time, wherewithall, and will to clean up their environment where those who are struggling just to make ends meet or even survive mostly put the environment way down on their list of concerns. All the more reason to encourage prosperity.

Which is, in a way, what this thread could be about. But the question is, what economic initiatives or principles in our society encourages the most benefit to the people overall?

We have never been as polluted as China. They can't see the sky.

Detroit in the 1960s was very close, if not worse

Unlikely. And that is just one city. China has pollution everywhere there are people.

 

[Foxfyre]

Hey Foxy! Check this out:

The Free Market Beats Government Planning Every Time

Excerpt:

The average well-stocked supermarket carries 60,000 to 65,000 different items. Walmart carries about 120,000 different items.

Let’s suppose Congress puts you in total control of getting just one item to a supermarket—say apples. Let’s not make it easy by having the help of apple wholesalers. Thus, you would have to figure out all of the inputs necessary to get apples to your local supermarket.

Let’s look at just a few. You need crates to ship the apples. Count all the inputs necessary to produce crates. There’s wood, but you need saws to cut down trees. The saws are made of steel, so iron ore must be mined, and mining equipment is needed. The workers must have shoes.

The complete list of inputs to get apples to the market comes to a very large, possibly an unknowable, number. Forgetting any one of them, such as spark plugs, would probably mean no apples at your supermarket.

The beauty of market allocation of goods and services, compared with government fiat, is no one person needs to know all that’s necessary to get apples to your supermarket. Free markets, accompanied by free trade, including international free trade, make us richer by economizing on the amount of knowledge or information needed to produce things.

AND, this is without the politics getting involved with the corruption that goes with that.

I also note that the article I linked was back in 2009, the first year of the Obama administration. This one you linked is 2017, the first year of the Trump administration.

I suspect we have a President now who better understands the concept that Dr. Williams is teaching than did President Obama and the people surrounding him.

I worry that Trump doesn’t understand the difference between personal/business debt and our national debt which are completely different things. I heard him talking about it during the campaign and he was acting like they were the same thing. I hope I’m wrong

Debt is debt regardless of whether it is created by an individual, a family, a mom and pop store, a mega corporation, or a country. Whenever debt exceeds the net worth/ability to repay of any one of these, that entity whether individual or country is bankrupt whether or not he/she/it officially declares bankruptcy.

I am quite sure the President understands that concept very well. And I am also sure that he knows all too well that debt becomes toxic only in a situation or environment in which it defaults or is in imminent danger of default. In an economy in which both business and consumer confidence is high, unless there is some irresponsible action or dereliction of duty of the government as we had in the 2008 housing bubble crash, the risk of bankruptcy is far less likely. Individual people just living their lives can contribute and/or be necessary to one, but they do not create a prosperous and enduring economy. Those who put their resources at risk by engaging in commerce and industry do.

A tax policy that encourages reasonable risk taking, competition, business growth, expansion, creation is a very good tax policy. And it generally helps produce the items in the poll that I checked as beneficial for the people of America.

 

[Brain357]

Eventually, if their house of cards doesn't collapse, their 1.38 billion people will produce more than our 327 million people. But not next year.

The 'house of cards' metaphor is one I can relate to in a discussion like this. But I also look at China's roughly 4 trillion dollar national debt in an economy very close to the size of ours. The USA holds a little over $1 trillion or so of that debt. The USA national debt is over $20 trillion and counting with China holding roughly $1 trillion or so of our debt. So the amount we owe each other is roughly the same, but the USA national debt is four times that of China's.

So when it comes to houses of cards, ours looks a little shakier maybe?

China has a huge pollution mess to clean up.

So have we had huge pollution messes to clean up, but prosperity tends to give people the time, wherewithall, and will to clean up their environment where those who are struggling just to make ends meet or even survive mostly put the environment way down on their list of concerns. All the more reason to encourage prosperity.

Which is, in a way, what this thread could be about. But the question is, what economic initiatives or principles in our society encourages the most benefit to the people overall?

We have never been as polluted as China. They can't see the sky.

Detroit in the 1960s was very close, if not worse

China Shuts Down Tens Of Thousands Of Factories In Unprecedented Pollution Crackdown

 

[Tax Man]

There is nothing good to come of this legislature. Americans and America will be economically hurt.

 

[Foxfyre]

There is nothing good to come of this legislature. Americans and America will be economically hurt.

So how did you answer the poll? And how does your opinion here apply to that?

 

[Foxfyre]

The 'house of cards' metaphor is one I can relate to in a discussion like this. But I also look at China's roughly 4 trillion dollar national debt in an economy very close to the size of ours. The USA holds a little over $1 trillion or so of that debt. The USA national debt is over $20 trillion and counting with China holding roughly $1 trillion or so of our debt. So the amount we owe each other is roughly the same, but the USA national debt is four times that of China's.

So when it comes to houses of cards, ours looks a little shakier maybe?

China has a huge pollution mess to clean up.

So have we had huge pollution messes to clean up, but prosperity tends to give people the time, wherewithall, and will to clean up their environment where those who are struggling just to make ends meet or even survive mostly put the environment way down on their list of concerns. All the more reason to encourage prosperity.

Which is, in a way, what this thread could be about. But the question is, what economic initiatives or principles in our society encourages the most benefit to the people overall?

We have never been as polluted as China. They can't see the sky.

Detroit in the 1960s was very close, if not worse

China Shuts Down Tens Of Thousands Of Factories In Unprecedented Pollution Crackdown

Could we discuss that on a China pollution thread please? This one is about what economic policy best benefits the people of America. Thank you.

 

[Slade3200]

Hey Foxy! Check this out:

The Free Market Beats Government Planning Every Time

Excerpt:

The average well-stocked supermarket carries 60,000 to 65,000 different items. Walmart carries about 120,000 different items.

Let’s suppose Congress puts you in total control of getting just one item to a supermarket—say apples. Let’s not make it easy by having the help of apple wholesalers. Thus, you would have to figure out all of the inputs necessary to get apples to your local supermarket.

Let’s look at just a few. You need crates to ship the apples. Count all the inputs necessary to produce crates. There’s wood, but you need saws to cut down trees. The saws are made of steel, so iron ore must be mined, and mining equipment is needed. The workers must have shoes.

The complete list of inputs to get apples to the market comes to a very large, possibly an unknowable, number. Forgetting any one of them, such as spark plugs, would probably mean no apples at your supermarket.

The beauty of market allocation of goods and services, compared with government fiat, is no one person needs to know all that’s necessary to get apples to your supermarket. Free markets, accompanied by free trade, including international free trade, make us richer by economizing on the amount of knowledge or information needed to produce things.

AND, this is without the politics getting involved with the corruption that goes with that.

I also note that the article I linked was back in 2009, the first year of the Obama administration. This one you linked is 2017, the first year of the Trump administration.

I suspect we have a President now who better understands the concept that Dr. Williams is teaching than did President Obama and the people surrounding him.

I worry that Trump doesn’t understand the difference between personal/business debt and our national debt which are completely different things. I heard him talking about it during the campaign and he was acting like they were the same thing. I hope I’m wrong

Debt is debt regardless of whether it is created by an individual, a family, a mom and pop store, a mega corporation, or a country. Whenever debt exceeds the net worth/ability to repay of any one of these, that entity whether individual or country is bankrupt whether or not he/she/it officially declares bankruptcy.

I am quite sure the President understands that concept very well. And I am also sure that he knows all too well that debt becomes toxic only in a situation or environment in which it defaults or is in imminent danger of default. In an economy in which both business and consumer confidence is high, unless there is some irresponsible action or dereliction of duty of the government as we had in the 2008 housing bubble crash, the risk of bankruptcy is far less likely. Individual people just living their lives do not create a prosperous and enduring economy. Those who put their resources at risk by engaging in commerce and industry do.

A tax policy that encourages reasonable risk taking, competition, business growth, expansion, creation is a very good tax policy.

Oh no. Taking on personal debt is very very different than the debt of a sovereign nation in control of its own currency. If you buy a million dollars worth of treasury bonds for your 401k the debt clicker ticks up by a million dollars. You then gain interest on that investment and it gets paid back to you usually to help with retirement. New money is created by the act of borrowing from banks. There are so many elements involved and they have a different purpose, which is To run a national economy, not simply consume and acquire like we run our personal lives. It is a completely different beast and anybody that equalizes the two is very much not understanding the situation. Please do some more research on the differences between personal debt and the national debt.

 

[Foxfyre]

Hey Foxy! Check this out:

The Free Market Beats Government Planning Every Time

Excerpt:

The average well-stocked supermarket carries 60,000 to 65,000 different items. Walmart carries about 120,000 different items.

Let’s suppose Congress puts you in total control of getting just one item to a supermarket—say apples. Let’s not make it easy by having the help of apple wholesalers. Thus, you would have to figure out all of the inputs necessary to get apples to your local supermarket.

Let’s look at just a few. You need crates to ship the apples. Count all the inputs necessary to produce crates. There’s wood, but you need saws to cut down trees. The saws are made of steel, so iron ore must be mined, and mining equipment is needed. The workers must have shoes.

The complete list of inputs to get apples to the market comes to a very large, possibly an unknowable, number. Forgetting any one of them, such as spark plugs, would probably mean no apples at your supermarket.

The beauty of market allocation of goods and services, compared with government fiat, is no one person needs to know all that’s necessary to get apples to your supermarket. Free markets, accompanied by free trade, including international free trade, make us richer by economizing on the amount of knowledge or information needed to produce things.

AND, this is without the politics getting involved with the corruption that goes with that.

I also note that the article I linked was back in 2009, the first year of the Obama administration. This one you linked is 2017, the first year of the Trump administration.

I suspect we have a President now who better understands the concept that Dr. Williams is teaching than did President Obama and the people surrounding him.

I worry that Trump doesn’t understand the difference between personal/business debt and our national debt which are completely different things. I heard him talking about it during the campaign and he was acting like they were the same thing. I hope I’m wrong

Debt is debt regardless of whether it is created by an individual, a family, a mom and pop store, a mega corporation, or a country. Whenever debt exceeds the net worth/ability to repay of any one of these, that entity whether individual or country is bankrupt whether or not he/she/it officially declares bankruptcy.

I am quite sure the President understands that concept very well. And I am also sure that he knows all too well that debt becomes toxic only in a situation or environment in which it defaults or is in imminent danger of default. In an economy in which both business and consumer confidence is high, unless there is some irresponsible action or dereliction of duty of the government as we had in the 2008 housing bubble crash, the risk of bankruptcy is far less likely. Individual people just living their lives do not create a prosperous and enduring economy. Those who put their resources at risk by engaging in commerce and industry do.

A tax policy that encourages reasonable risk taking, competition, business growth, expansion, creation is a very good tax policy.

Oh no. Taking on personal debt is very very different than the debt of a sovereign nation in control of its own currency. If you buy a million dollars worth of treasury bonds for your 401k the debt clicker ticks up by a million dollars. You then gain interest on that investment and it gets paid back to you usually to help with retirement. New money is created by the act of borrowing from banks. There are so many elements involved and they have a different purpose, which is To run a national economy, not simply consume and acquire like we run our personal lives. It is a completely different beast and anybody that equalizes the two is very much not understanding the situation. Please do some more research on the differences between personal debt and the national debt.

I did not say that the structure of national and personal debt are the same. I said that the basic definition is the same. Debt is occurred with one person or entity owe something to the other. And by the very definition of debt means that should the debtor default on that debt, somebody else will be the poorer for it. If there is enough default, the family prosperity will collapse. If there is aenough default, a country's economy will collapse. Same principle. Same results regardless of how they are created and/or structured.

But please, returning to the thread topic, what contributes most to the economic benefit of the people? Certainly a good credit rating can be a factor. That probably should have been included in the poll if we were allowed more options.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

I totally agree that the gop should have ended corporate tax expenditures in exchange for corp tax cuts, but Wall St didn't want that

Do you realize expenses are deducted from profits and only profits are taxed?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

I wish I could have been blessed with an economics class or two taught by Walter E. Williams PhD, long time tenured profession of economics at George Mason University, best selling author, syndicated columnist, and occasional guest talk show host or television commentator.

Dr, Williams, whether on paper, on the radio/TV and I imagine in the classroom, doesn't teach via mind numbing charts, graphs, pointy headed academic language, or high sounding terms used by people who want others to admire them for their superior intellect. He uses familiar imagery, illustrations, logic, reason to drill home important lessons that actually teach economics as a practical subject instead of an academic exercise.

Today I ran across one of my favorite columns of his that has most often been entitled "An Economic Miracle."

He used an amazing illustration of an Adam Smith principle by explaining how no person, group of people, or government would have the insight, knowledge, or ability to stock the average American super market with 10,000+ different items at a price people can afford to buy. It is rather millions of people looking to their own interests that create that miracle. No government would likely have the resources to put a single product on the shelf at the grocery store.

He closed the column with this provocative observation:

If you have doubts about Adam Smith's prediction, ask yourself which areas of our lives are we the most satisfied and those with most complaints. Would they be profit motivated arenas such supermarkets, video or clothing stores, or be nonprofit motivated government-operated arenas such as public schools, postal delivery or motor vehicle registration? By the way, how many of you would be in favor of Congress running our supermarkets?​

Economic Miracle, by Walter E.Williams

The lesson would be very good for the American people to consider when evaluating the merits of the tax reform just passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. There is much criticism of the lion's share of tax relief going to business and industry or as some characterize it: 'the wealthy.' But is that something to criticize? Or commend?

As Dr. Williams would probably say (and may already have), overall, what benefits the people the most? Encouraging a profit motive in commerce and industry? Or the government directing money/resources/opportunity to those demographics that the government decides should have it?

The poll is multiple choice and you can change your answer should you rethink your initial choices

If you like Williams you'll probably like Friedman as well.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Thanks you for the post. You appear to have put a lot of thought into it and have posed some great topics for discussion.

I think our tax system needed reform so I’d say this bill is a net positive but I am very disappointed as I think it fell short in many areas. I wish it would have concentrated the majority of its energy into the middle class and small businesses. The extreme wealthy and corporations should get deductions for investments that help our economy, but for profits that they stuff in their bank accounts I’m more than fine taxing. Things are trending towards the top dogs owning everything in the future and then our “free market capitalistic society” turns into corporate/buerocratic socialism as they will run the show. Us citizens will then be mostly comprised of renters and employees. It is a very dangerous trend and this bill didn’t do much to help that problem, it may have even enabled it.

Most of the issues in the economy aren't really tax related once the tax burden is brought down to a reasonable level. Regulations have as much to do with keeping competition out as tax rates. Lower taxes can benefit large companies but the regulations are what keeps them there. Regulations they pushed for because it keeps people out.

 

[Slade3200]

Hey Foxy! Check this out:

The Free Market Beats Government Planning Every Time

Excerpt:

The average well-stocked supermarket carries 60,000 to 65,000 different items. Walmart carries about 120,000 different items.

Let’s suppose Congress puts you in total control of getting just one item to a supermarket—say apples. Let’s not make it easy by having the help of apple wholesalers. Thus, you would have to figure out all of the inputs necessary to get apples to your local supermarket.

Let’s look at just a few. You need crates to ship the apples. Count all the inputs necessary to produce crates. There’s wood, but you need saws to cut down trees. The saws are made of steel, so iron ore must be mined, and mining equipment is needed. The workers must have shoes.

The complete list of inputs to get apples to the market comes to a very large, possibly an unknowable, number. Forgetting any one of them, such as spark plugs, would probably mean no apples at your supermarket.

The beauty of market allocation of goods and services, compared with government fiat, is no one person needs to know all that’s necessary to get apples to your supermarket. Free markets, accompanied by free trade, including international free trade, make us richer by economizing on the amount of knowledge or information needed to produce things.

AND, this is without the politics getting involved with the corruption that goes with that.

I also note that the article I linked was back in 2009, the first year of the Obama administration. This one you linked is 2017, the first year of the Trump administration.

I suspect we have a President now who better understands the concept that Dr. Williams is teaching than did President Obama and the people surrounding him.

I worry that Trump doesn’t understand the difference between personal/business debt and our national debt which are completely different things. I heard him talking about it during the campaign and he was acting like they were the same thing. I hope I’m wrong

Debt is debt regardless of whether it is created by an individual, a family, a mom and pop store, a mega corporation, or a country. Whenever debt exceeds the net worth/ability to repay of any one of these, that entity whether individual or country is bankrupt whether or not he/she/it officially declares bankruptcy.

I am quite sure the President understands that concept very well. And I am also sure that he knows all too well that debt becomes toxic only in a situation or environment in which it defaults or is in imminent danger of default. In an economy in which both business and consumer confidence is high, unless there is some irresponsible action or dereliction of duty of the government as we had in the 2008 housing bubble crash, the risk of bankruptcy is far less likely. Individual people just living their lives do not create a prosperous and enduring economy. Those who put their resources at risk by engaging in commerce and industry do.

A tax policy that encourages reasonable risk taking, competition, business growth, expansion, creation is a very good tax policy.

Oh no. Taking on personal debt is very very different than the debt of a sovereign nation in control of its own currency. If you buy a million dollars worth of treasury bonds for your 401k the debt clicker ticks up by a million dollars. You then gain interest on that investment and it gets paid back to you usually to help with retirement. New money is created by the act of borrowing from banks. There are so many elements involved and they have a different purpose, which is To run a national economy, not simply consume and acquire like we run our personal lives. It is a completely different beast and anybody that equalizes the two is very much not understanding the situation. Please do some more research on the differences between personal debt and the national debt.

I did not say that the structure of national and personal debt are the same. I said that the basic definition is the same. Debt is occurred with one person or entity owe something to the other. And by the very definition of debt means that should the debtor default on that debt, somebody else will be the poorer for it. If there is enough default, the family prosperity will collapse. If there is aenough default, a country's economy will collapse. Same principle. Same results regardless of how they are created and/or structured.

But please, returning to the thread topic, what contributes most to the economic benefit of the people? Certainly a good credit rating can be a factor. That probably should have been included in the poll if we were allowed more options.

You are right about what debt is and the effects of default. My points was that one is a closed system and the other is an open system so how you manage them requires detailed understanding and different priorities.

To your question. With the path I see our economy headed towards I’d say distribution of wealth is a tremendous concern. Like I said in my original post. The top 1% is buying everything and taking ownership of the market. It will get to a point where it is not free anymore. So from a political standpoint I’d like to see less propping up of big corporations and more propping up of the middle class. Instead of giving billions to corporations to hire people, focus on education and middle class tax cuts and grants to help grow small business and local owned businesses. Make it a priority to increase home ownership. Every middle class family that works hard should be able to own a Home and/or start a business. This is not obtainable in many parts of our country. I’d like to see the focus go there.

 

[Slade3200]

Thanks you for the post. You appear to have put a lot of thought into it and have posed some great topics for discussion.

I think our tax system needed reform so I’d say this bill is a net positive but I am very disappointed as I think it fell short in many areas. I wish it would have concentrated the majority of its energy into the middle class and small businesses. The extreme wealthy and corporations should get deductions for investments that help our economy, but for profits that they stuff in their bank accounts I’m more than fine taxing. Things are trending towards the top dogs owning everything in the future and then our “free market capitalistic society” turns into corporate/buerocratic socialism as they will run the show. Us citizens will then be mostly comprised of renters and employees. It is a very dangerous trend and this bill didn’t do much to help that problem, it may have even enabled it.

Most of the issues in the economy aren't really tax related once the tax burden is brought down to a reasonable level. Regulations have as much to do with keeping competition out as tax rates. Lower taxes can benefit large companies but the regulations are what keeps them there. Regulations they pushed for because it keeps people out.

Agree. Smart regulation is very much needed but excessive regulation is very damaging.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

I also note that the article I linked was back in 2009, the first year of the Obama administration. This one you linked is 2017, the first year of the Trump administration.

I suspect we have a President now who better understands the concept that Dr. Williams is teaching than did President Obama and the people surrounding him.

I worry that Trump doesn’t understand the difference between personal/business debt and our national debt which are completely different things. I heard him talking about it during the campaign and he was acting like they were the same thing. I hope I’m wrong

Debt is debt regardless of whether it is created by an individual, a family, a mom and pop store, a mega corporation, or a country. Whenever debt exceeds the net worth/ability to repay of any one of these, that entity whether individual or country is bankrupt whether or not he/she/it officially declares bankruptcy.

I am quite sure the President understands that concept very well. And I am also sure that he knows all too well that debt becomes toxic only in a situation or environment in which it defaults or is in imminent danger of default. In an economy in which both business and consumer confidence is high, unless there is some irresponsible action or dereliction of duty of the government as we had in the 2008 housing bubble crash, the risk of bankruptcy is far less likely. Individual people just living their lives do not create a prosperous and enduring economy. Those who put their resources at risk by engaging in commerce and industry do.

A tax policy that encourages reasonable risk taking, competition, business growth, expansion, creation is a very good tax policy.

Oh no. Taking on personal debt is very very different than the debt of a sovereign nation in control of its own currency. If you buy a million dollars worth of treasury bonds for your 401k the debt clicker ticks up by a million dollars. You then gain interest on that investment and it gets paid back to you usually to help with retirement. New money is created by the act of borrowing from banks. There are so many elements involved and they have a different purpose, which is To run a national economy, not simply consume and acquire like we run our personal lives. It is a completely different beast and anybody that equalizes the two is very much not understanding the situation. Please do some more research on the differences between personal debt and the national debt.

I did not say that the structure of national and personal debt are the same. I said that the basic definition is the same. Debt is occurred with one person or entity owe something to the other. And by the very definition of debt means that should the debtor default on that debt, somebody else will be the poorer for it. If there is enough default, the family prosperity will collapse. If there is aenough default, a country's economy will collapse. Same principle. Same results regardless of how they are created and/or structured.

But please, returning to the thread topic, what contributes most to the economic benefit of the people? Certainly a good credit rating can be a factor. That probably should have been included in the poll if we were allowed more options.

You are right about what debt is and the effects of default. My points was that one is a closed system and the other is an open system so how you manage them requires detailed understanding and different priorities.

To your question. With the path I see our economy headed towards I’d say distribution of wealth is a tremendous concern. Like I said in my original post. The top 1% is buying everything and taking ownership of the market. It will get to a point where it is not free anymore. So from a political standpoint I’d like to see less propping up of big corporations and more propping up of the middle class. Instead of giving billions to corporations to hire people, focus on education and middle class tax cuts and grants to help grow small business and local owned businesses. Make it a priority to increase home ownership. Every middle class family that works hard should be able to own a Home and/or start a business. This is not obtainable in many parts of our country. I’d like to see the focus go there.

I disagree. It's not our job as tax payers to support one over the other, big versus small. If we have a low regulation low tax environment there's no way the top 1% can get a hold of anything they don't compete for. There will always be a smaller faster more innovative option. Just keep the taxes and regulations down and things will get better. There's no reason to use tax dollars to help either one.

 

[Slade3200]

I worry that Trump doesn’t understand the difference between personal/business debt and our national debt which are completely different things. I heard him talking about it during the campaign and he was acting like they were the same thing. I hope I’m wrong

Debt is debt regardless of whether it is created by an individual, a family, a mom and pop store, a mega corporation, or a country. Whenever debt exceeds the net worth/ability to repay of any one of these, that entity whether individual or country is bankrupt whether or not he/she/it officially declares bankruptcy.

I am quite sure the President understands that concept very well. And I am also sure that he knows all too well that debt becomes toxic only in a situation or environment in which it defaults or is in imminent danger of default. In an economy in which both business and consumer confidence is high, unless there is some irresponsible action or dereliction of duty of the government as we had in the 2008 housing bubble crash, the risk of bankruptcy is far less likely. Individual people just living their lives do not create a prosperous and enduring economy. Those who put their resources at risk by engaging in commerce and industry do.

A tax policy that encourages reasonable risk taking, competition, business growth, expansion, creation is a very good tax policy.

Oh no. Taking on personal debt is very very different than the debt of a sovereign nation in control of its own currency. If you buy a million dollars worth of treasury bonds for your 401k the debt clicker ticks up by a million dollars. You then gain interest on that investment and it gets paid back to you usually to help with retirement. New money is created by the act of borrowing from banks. There are so many elements involved and they have a different purpose, which is To run a national economy, not simply consume and acquire like we run our personal lives. It is a completely different beast and anybody that equalizes the two is very much not understanding the situation. Please do some more research on the differences between personal debt and the national debt.

I did not say that the structure of national and personal debt are the same. I said that the basic definition is the same. Debt is occurred with one person or entity owe something to the other. And by the very definition of debt means that should the debtor default on that debt, somebody else will be the poorer for it. If there is enough default, the family prosperity will collapse. If there is aenough default, a country's economy will collapse. Same principle. Same results regardless of how they are created and/or structured.

But please, returning to the thread topic, what contributes most to the economic benefit of the people? Certainly a good credit rating can be a factor. That probably should have been included in the poll if we were allowed more options.

You are right about what debt is and the effects of default. My points was that one is a closed system and the other is an open system so how you manage them requires detailed understanding and different priorities.

To your question. With the path I see our economy headed towards I’d say distribution of wealth is a tremendous concern. Like I said in my original post. The top 1% is buying everything and taking ownership of the market. It will get to a point where it is not free anymore. So from a political standpoint I’d like to see less propping up of big corporations and more propping up of the middle class. Instead of giving billions to corporations to hire people, focus on education and middle class tax cuts and grants to help grow small business and local owned businesses. Make it a priority to increase home ownership. Every middle class family that works hard should be able to own a Home and/or start a business. This is not obtainable in many parts of our country. I’d like to see the focus go there.

I disagree. It's not our job as tax payers to support one over the other, big versus small. If we have a low regulation low tax environment there's no way the top 1% can get a hold of anything they don't compete for. There will always be a smaller faster more innovative option. Just keep the taxes and regulations down and things will get better. There's no reason to use tax dollars to help either one.

Take taxation out of it and just look at the economic situation. The big dogs are buying everything. Yeah we will get the occasional “Facebook” or innovative small business that goes big. But local Mom and pop opperations are getting swallowed up and the comet ion becomes a pee wee team vs a NFL team. That’s only going to lead to an even more lopsided society than we already have.

 

[Brain357]

Debt is debt regardless of whether it is created by an individual, a family, a mom and pop store, a mega corporation, or a country. Whenever debt exceeds the net worth/ability to repay of any one of these, that entity whether individual or country is bankrupt whether or not he/she/it officially declares bankruptcy.

I am quite sure the President understands that concept very well. And I am also sure that he knows all too well that debt becomes toxic only in a situation or environment in which it defaults or is in imminent danger of default. In an economy in which both business and consumer confidence is high, unless there is some irresponsible action or dereliction of duty of the government as we had in the 2008 housing bubble crash, the risk of bankruptcy is far less likely. Individual people just living their lives do not create a prosperous and enduring economy. Those who put their resources at risk by engaging in commerce and industry do.

A tax policy that encourages reasonable risk taking, competition, business growth, expansion, creation is a very good tax policy.

Oh no. Taking on personal debt is very very different than the debt of a sovereign nation in control of its own currency. If you buy a million dollars worth of treasury bonds for your 401k the debt clicker ticks up by a million dollars. You then gain interest on that investment and it gets paid back to you usually to help with retirement. New money is created by the act of borrowing from banks. There are so many elements involved and they have a different purpose, which is To run a national economy, not simply consume and acquire like we run our personal lives. It is a completely different beast and anybody that equalizes the two is very much not understanding the situation. Please do some more research on the differences between personal debt and the national debt.

I did not say that the structure of national and personal debt are the same. I said that the basic definition is the same. Debt is occurred with one person or entity owe something to the other. And by the very definition of debt means that should the debtor default on that debt, somebody else will be the poorer for it. If there is enough default, the family prosperity will collapse. If there is aenough default, a country's economy will collapse. Same principle. Same results regardless of how they are created and/or structured.

But please, returning to the thread topic, what contributes most to the economic benefit of the people? Certainly a good credit rating can be a factor. That probably should have been included in the poll if we were allowed more options.

You are right about what debt is and the effects of default. My points was that one is a closed system and the other is an open system so how you manage them requires detailed understanding and different priorities.

To your question. With the path I see our economy headed towards I’d say distribution of wealth is a tremendous concern. Like I said in my original post. The top 1% is buying everything and taking ownership of the market. It will get to a point where it is not free anymore. So from a political standpoint I’d like to see less propping up of big corporations and more propping up of the middle class. Instead of giving billions to corporations to hire people, focus on education and middle class tax cuts and grants to help grow small business and local owned businesses. Make it a priority to increase home ownership. Every middle class family that works hard should be able to own a Home and/or start a business. This is not obtainable in many parts of our country. I’d like to see the focus go there.

I disagree. It's not our job as tax payers to support one over the other, big versus small. If we have a low regulation low tax environment there's no way the top 1% can get a hold of anything they don't compete for. There will always be a smaller faster more innovative option. Just keep the taxes and regulations down and things will get better. There's no reason to use tax dollars to help either one.

Take taxation out of it and just look at the economic situation. The big dogs are buying everything. Yeah we will get the occasional “Facebook” or innovative small business that goes big. But local Mom and pop opperations are getting swallowed up and the comet ion becomes a pee wee team vs a NFL team. That’s only going to lead to an even more lopsided society than we already have.

Healthcare costs also make it much harder to start up something unless you already have money.

 

[task0778]

Consider this: in the last couple of decades we've seen company after company move offshore. Why? Actually TBH there's a number of reasons but one big one is taxation:

It is economic malpractice that American businesses have remained subject to an outdated 1986 corporate tax code, and a fossilized 1960s international tax system. Since 2000, 33 of the 35 OECD countries have cut their corporate tax rates from an average of 32 percent to 24 percent, while the U.S. has stubbornly clung to an exorbitant 39 percent rate including state taxes. In a global economy, where companies can choose where to produce and invest, these tax rates have chased countless companies and trillions of dollars overseas. Furthermore, the United States has remained one of the last countries on earth with a “worldwide” tax system that requires its multinational companies — which already pay taxes to the country in which they are located — to face a second layer of taxation when they repatriate profits. Instead, many companies leave profits and investment abroad, creating the worst of both worlds: a stratospheric tax rate that ultimately raises little tax revenue from multinationals.

The Tax Cut and Jobs Act finally brings the U.S. corporate tax system into the 21st century global economy. The corporate tax rate will decline to 21 percent (25 percent including state taxes). The worldwide tax system will be replaced with a territorial system in line with our global competitors. Because business investment is 88 percent correlated with job growth, this bill allows businesses to deduct fully the new cost of new investments (with a gradual phase-out after 2022 that Congress will likely cancel). In return for these improvements, corporations will face a mild reduction in tax deductions — led by a limitation in their ability to deduct interest expenses — and multinationals will face a significant one-time “toll charge” on overseas profits. These are a small price to pay for a historic modernization of the corporate tax code.

Much of Tax Reform Bill Is Good, but Overall It Gets a B-Minus | Manhattan Institute

Yes, most of that tax cut goes to the wealthy cuz they have the most money invested in businesses large and small. But american companies cannot compete ont he world stage with the old tax code, so they leave cuz it's more profitable for them to do so. How stupid is it for us to incentivize our businesses to leave?

 

[initforme]

The tax bill should have doubled the middle class tax cuts. Only those that worship corporate power disagree. They are a threat to this nation.