The 2017 tax reform from an economic point of view

[task0778]

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.

Do you want to spend your hard-earned money in a mom and pop store and get 5 items or go to Walmart and get 10 items for the same amount? I can tell you what the answer is for most of us with an annual income south of $50k, depending on where you live. It's called economies of scale I think, it ain't nice but it's real. That said, yes the gov't has to be making sure there's no unfair business practices going on, nobody is getting cheated. And as far as I'm concerned a particularly sharp eye needs to be on mergers and acquisitions to make sure the benefit to the consumer is paramount; IMHO there's gotta be a significant boost in benefit to everyone rather than just the big corp that want to get bigger.

 

[Slade3200]

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.

Do you want to spend your hard-earned money in a mom and pop store and get 5 items or go to Walmart and get 10 items for the same amount? I can tell you what the answer is for most of us with an annual income south of $50k, depending on where you live. It's called economies of scale I think, it ain't nice but it's real. That said, yes the gov't has to be making sure there's no unfair business practices going on, nobody is getting cheated. And as far as I'm concerned a particularly sharp eye needs to be on mergers and acquisitions to make sure the benefit to the consumer is paramount; IMHO there's gotta be a significant boost in benefit to everyone rather than just the big corp that want to get bigger.

You make great points and your Walmart example shows the power that corporations have over the Mom and pop shops and why so many are shutting down. They can’t compete or they need to go boutique and sell to the rich or niche markets. I’d like to go to a Mom and pop shop and by 10 items for the same price as buying the same 10 items from Walmart. How’s that?

 

[usmbguest5318]

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

I don't know how one brings oneself to make such a ridiculous remark. How much of China have you seen?

You don't need to answer that question because having worked there off and on for the past ~20 years, I attest to the fact that one can both at night and during the day see the sky in Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Shenzhen, Dalian, Chengdu, Guangzhou, Tianjin, Dongguan, and a host of other locales.

 

[Brain357]

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

I don't know how one brings oneself to make such a ridiculous remark. How much of China have you seen?

You don't need to answer that question because having worked there off and on for the past ~20 years, I attest to the fact that one can both at night and during the day see the sky in Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Shenzhen, Dalian, Chengdu, Guangzhou, Tianjin, Dongguan, and a host of other locales.

Yes the sky looks nice in Beijing.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Do you want to spend your hard-earned money in a mom and pop store and get 5 items or go to Walmart and get 10 items for the same amount? I can tell you what the answer is for most of us with an annual income south of $50k, depending on where you live. It's called economies of scale I think, it ain't nice but it's real. That said, yes the gov't has to be making sure there's no unfair business practices going on, nobody is getting cheated. And as far as I'm concerned a particularly sharp eye needs to be on mergers and acquisitions to make sure the benefit to the consumer is paramount; IMHO there's gotta be a significant boost in benefit to everyone rather than just the big corp that want to get bigger.

It's called economies of scale

OT:

Yes, basically it is, and every organization except the CMS uses it to garner price concessions for the the benefit of their stakeholders.

• Uncle Sam barred from bargaining Medicare drug prices, Senate candidate Tammy Baldwin says, blaming rival Tommy Thompson
  
• https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20160919.056632/full/

 

[task0778]

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.

Do you want to spend your hard-earned money in a mom and pop store and get 5 items or go to Walmart and get 10 items for the same amount? I can tell you what the answer is for most of us with an annual income south of $50k, depending on where you live. It's called economies of scale I think, it ain't nice but it's real. That said, yes the gov't has to be making sure there's no unfair business practices going on, nobody is getting cheated. And as far as I'm concerned a particularly sharp eye needs to be on mergers and acquisitions to make sure the benefit to the consumer is paramount; IMHO there's gotta be a significant boost in benefit to everyone rather than just the big corp that want to get bigger.

You make great points and your Walmart example shows the power that corporations have over the Mom and pop shops and why so many are shutting down. They can’t compete or they need to go boutique and sell to the rich or niche markets. I’d like to go to a Mom and pop shop and by 10 items for the same price as buying the same 10 items from Walmart. How’s that?

That'd be great, but it ain't reality. The little guys cannot match the big guys in the price cuz they cannot match them for the costs of supply. Wish they could, we'd be better off with more competition, I'd rather see 10 or 20 smaller enterprises than 1 or 2 huge ones. BUT, I and millions of other low income folks have to go to Walmart to stretch our dollars as far as we can.

So, back to the thread on the benefits of this Trump tax cut, what the cuts in corp tax rates means is that more American businesses will stay here rather than leave the country to avoid the ridiculously high taxes, and that helps keep more jobs here rather than losing them. AND, it ought to help the pass throughs compete better with the big boys if their tax burden is reduced. Heck, the big boys can afford to hire tax experts, lawyers, and accountants to cut their tax liability anyway, so this looks to me like an leveling of the playing field a little bit. Coulda been better, maybe the Congress will make it better in the coming months.

 

[usmbguest5318]

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

I don't know how one brings oneself to make such a ridiculous remark. How much of China have you seen?

You don't need to answer that question because having worked there off and on for the past ~20 years, I attest to the fact that one can both at night and during the day see the sky in Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Shenzhen, Dalian, Chengdu, Guangzhou, Tianjin, Dongguan, and a host of other locales.

Yes the sky looks nice in Beijing.

I really don't care what photo you can find that ostensibly appears to support your assertion. I've been there. I've lived there for weeks to months on end. I'm not saying they don't have very bad smog. I'm saying that the smog is not so persistent everywhere and all the time in China that one cannot see the sky. Are there days when one cannot see the sky? Yes. That's not the same as not being able to see the sky. I take exception with your exaggeration and simplistic misrepresentation of the facts, not that your statement is occasionally accurate.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

But consider this. Excessive taxation and regulation and mandates makes it much more difficult for the little guy to complete with the with multi-state, multi-national corporations. General Electric, for instance, pays little or no taxes in the USA because they keep their losing businesses here to use for tax writeoffs while they make their big money overseas where it is much more profitable for them to do business. They also rathole their considerable capital overseas because it is so costly to bring it home and put it to work here.They actually welcome the mandates and regulations that they can and do afford anyway, because they know the little guys can't afford that which removes most of the chance the little guys will be much competition for them.

The little guys put so much at risk in a highly taxed, highly regulated system in which the economy is really sluggish that they choose not to risk. They sideline much of their working and venture capital and, even if they continue to operate, they haven't taken the considerable risk of losing what they have by expanding or growing or starting up new ventures. So we have had almost as much money sidelined here in the states as is parked off shore to avoid the tax man and the regulators.

The recently passed tax bill is intended to be an important first step to fix that situation. The Administration is rolling back unnecessary regulations, imposing no new ones, and has made our corporate taxes more competitive with the rest of the developed world. Since business cannot react immediately, it will be some months before we can assess how much incentive it will put out there to benefit us all. Meanwhile, everybody could do America a huge favor by hoping for good results instead of continuing to poison the atmosphere and tear it down.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Fascism benefits people the most economically.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

The best deals I get as a consumer are from my non-profit credit union and my non-profit electric co-op.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It has been widely speculated that China's economy will pass the USA in 2018 and the USA will lose it's designation as the world's biggest/strongest economy. Good thing? Bad thing?

It will be interesting to see if the recently passed tax bill plus renegotiated trade deals will keep us at #1. I am pretty sure that is the President's hope for the new year.

You're harping on the 'free market' while advocating heavily regulated trade deals? lol

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

You know Adam Smith was also an ardent proponent of?

Paying for your wars as they happen.

 

[SmokeALib]

It has been widely speculated that China's economy will pass the USA in 2018 and the USA will lose it's designation as the world's biggest/strongest economy. Good thing? Bad thing?

It will be interesting to see if the recently passed tax bill plus renegotiated trade deals will keep us at #1. I am pretty sure that is the President's hope for the new year.

You're harping on the 'free market' while advocating heavily regulated trade deals? lol

WTF is a "heavily regulated" trade deal? Is that a trade deal with no stipulations in it?
Are you stupid?

 

[NYcarbineer]

It has been widely speculated that China's economy will pass the USA in 2018 and the USA will lose it's designation as the world's biggest/strongest economy. Good thing? Bad thing?

It will be interesting to see if the recently passed tax bill plus renegotiated trade deals will keep us at #1. I am pretty sure that is the President's hope for the new year.

You're harping on the 'free market' while advocating heavily regulated trade deals? lol

WTF is a "heavily regulated" trade deal? Is that a trade deal with no stipulations in it?
Are you stupid?

A trade deal that imposes a government mandated 35% tariff on imports, something Trump once promised.

 

[SmokeALib]

It has been widely speculated that China's economy will pass the USA in 2018 and the USA will lose it's designation as the world's biggest/strongest economy. Good thing? Bad thing?

It will be interesting to see if the recently passed tax bill plus renegotiated trade deals will keep us at #1. I am pretty sure that is the President's hope for the new year.

You're harping on the 'free market' while advocating heavily regulated trade deals? lol

WTF is a "heavily regulated" trade deal? Is that a trade deal with no stipulations in it?
Are you stupid?

A trade deal that imposes a government mandated 35% tariff on imports, something Trump once promised.

Wow. You ARE stupid. Go put on your big boy panties and join the real world.

 

[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.

But consider this. Excessive taxation and regulation and mandates makes it much more difficult for the little guy to complete with the with multi-state, multi-national corporations. General Electric, for instance, pays little or no taxes in the USA because they keep their losing businesses here to use for tax writeoffs while they make their big money overseas where it is much more profitable for them to do business. They also rathole their considerable capital overseas because it is so costly to bring it home and put it to work here.They actually welcome the mandates and regulations that they can and do afford anyway, because they know the little guys can't afford that which removes most of the chance the little guys will be much competition for them.

The little guys put so much at risk in a highly taxed, highly regulated system in which the economy is really sluggish that they choose not to risk. They sideline much of their working and venture capital and, even if they continue to operate, they haven't taken the considerable risk of losing what they have by expanding or growing or starting up new ventures. So we have had almost as much money sidelined here in the states as is parked off shore to avoid the tax man and the regulators.

The recently passed tax bill is intended to be an important first step to fix that situation. The Administration is rolling back unnecessary regulations, imposing no new ones, and has made our corporate taxes more competitive with the rest of the developed world. Since business cannot react immediately, it will be some months before we can assess how much incentive it will put out there to benefit us all. Meanwhile, everybody could do America a huge favor by hoping for good results instead of continuing to poison the atmosphere and tear it down.

Let’s drill down on two of your points that sound like they are conflicting to me. You say that our corporate taxes are highest in the world and driving companies over seas. You also say that corporations like GE utilize loopholes to pay an effective tax rate of close to zero. How do both of those work for your argument?

Btw. Agree with you about the small businesses. I’m all for cutting taxes and regulations for them to make it easier for them to thrive. I’d even support a grant and credit system for them. It’s the big dogs that worry me and they are the ones that benefit the most from the new tax bill

 

[Brain357]

It has been widely speculated that China's economy will pass the USA in 2018 and the USA will lose it's designation as the world's biggest/strongest economy. Good thing? Bad thing?

It will be interesting to see if the recently passed tax bill plus renegotiated trade deals will keep us at #1. I am pretty sure that is the President's hope for the new year.

You're harping on the 'free market' while advocating heavily regulated trade deals? lol

WTF is a "heavily regulated" trade deal? Is that a trade deal with no stipulations in it?
Are you stupid?

A trade deal that imposes a government mandated 35% tariff on imports, something Trump once promised.

Wow. You ARE stupid. Go put on your big boy panties and join the real world.

It's called free trade. Trump wants heavily taxed trade.

 

[Slade3200]

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.

Do you want to spend your hard-earned money in a mom and pop store and get 5 items or go to Walmart and get 10 items for the same amount? I can tell you what the answer is for most of us with an annual income south of $50k, depending on where you live. It's called economies of scale I think, it ain't nice but it's real. That said, yes the gov't has to be making sure there's no unfair business practices going on, nobody is getting cheated. And as far as I'm concerned a particularly sharp eye needs to be on mergers and acquisitions to make sure the benefit to the consumer is paramount; IMHO there's gotta be a significant boost in benefit to everyone rather than just the big corp that want to get bigger.

You make great points and your Walmart example shows the power that corporations have over the Mom and pop shops and why so many are shutting down. They can’t compete or they need to go boutique and sell to the rich or niche markets. I’d like to go to a Mom and pop shop and by 10 items for the same price as buying the same 10 items from Walmart. How’s that?

That'd be great, but it ain't reality. The little guys cannot match the big guys in the price cuz they cannot match them for the costs of supply. Wish they could, we'd be better off with more competition, I'd rather see 10 or 20 smaller enterprises than 1 or 2 huge ones. BUT, I and millions of other low income folks have to go to Walmart to stretch our dollars as far as we can.

So, back to the thread on the benefits of this Trump tax cut, what the cuts in corp tax rates means is that more American businesses will stay here rather than leave the country to avoid the ridiculously high taxes, and that helps keep more jobs here rather than losing them. AND, it ought to help the pass throughs compete better with the big boys if their tax burden is reduced. Heck, the big boys can afford to hire tax experts, lawyers, and accountants to cut their tax liability anyway, so this looks to me like an leveling of the playing field a little bit. Coulda been better, maybe the Congress will make it better in the coming months.

i understand what you are saying and agree with your point about lower cost for consumer goods. I also, regrettably, shop at Walmart at times.i want things to be as cheap as possible like I think most people do when looking at it from a consumers perspective. But I’m looking at the big picture and identifying issues with our economic system and how they will effect us in the future. I get it. You don’t have a lot of money and want easy access to cheap goods, the Walmarts provide that so it’s good for you. Thats understandable but it is also short term thinking. I’m trying to analysis the big picture for the long term. We are in a real mess

 

[NightFox]

It has been widely speculated that China's economy will pass the USA in 2018 and the USA will lose it's designation as the world's biggest/strongest economy. Good thing? Bad thing?

Ummm...no

The speculation is that China's share of global output adjusted for purchasing power parity will surpass that of the United States in 2018 not that the size of Chinas Economy will surpass that of the United States in 2018, the speculation on that prospect happening is sometime after 2030.

 

[Slade3200]

It has been widely speculated that China's economy will pass the USA in 2018 and the USA will lose it's designation as the world's biggest/strongest economy. Good thing? Bad thing?

It will be interesting to see if the recently passed tax bill plus renegotiated trade deals will keep us at #1. I am pretty sure that is the President's hope for the new year.

You're harping on the 'free market' while advocating heavily regulated trade deals? lol

WTF is a "heavily regulated" trade deal? Is that a trade deal with no stipulations in it?
Are you stupid?

A trade deal that imposes a government mandated 35% tariff on imports, something Trump once promised.

Wow. You ARE stupid. Go put on your big boy panties and join the real world.

A bit of advise. Don’t call somebody stupid after they answer your question and then fail to provide a counter agrguement... it just makes YOU look stupid.