yankees60 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 8:36 am
Getting back to your original comment. Somewhat similar criticism towards Walmart? More on the lines of how low they are paid. But, again, is anyone forced to take a job at Walmart?
People here would not like my thinking on CEO vs. worker pay. Personally I think it is out of line. My wife says if companies are willing to pay big salaries and/or give those extravagant stock options, it's their right.
And I'm not one to say, ok, anything over 10 million dollars is taxed at 90% sort of thing. I'd rather see that money go back spread among employees vs. the government. Employee ownership or something maybe.
Help me out, 30/40/50 years ago, a blue collar worker, like my Dad, could earn a good living, live in a decent house, have a couple cars and a wife who stayed at home all on one salary. That seems almost undoable currently.
In my utopia, everyone who works at a full time job (even at Walmart) should be able to afford food, housing, transportation and healthcare on one salary, offering the opportunity for the other parent to stay at home and raise kids.
Go ahead and rip me a new one on this!
If you're interested in this topic you'd really enjoy the podcast episode that Tortoise posted about. I enjoyed it immensely.
Cortopassi wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:02 pm
Why has the disparity between CEO pay and average worker pay increased so much over the past 50 years? Are CEOs adding that much more value?
It isn't just that rule change (and its unintended effects), but also a misunderstanding at the board level about what stock options were, and how a different financial rule (since fixed, but controversially) made them appear to be free.
yankees60 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 8:36 am
Getting back to your original comment. Somewhat similar criticism towards Walmart? More on the lines of how low they are paid. But, again, is anyone forced to take a job at Walmart?
People here would not like my thinking on CEO vs. worker pay. Personally I think it is out of line. My wife says if companies are willing to pay big salaries and/or give those extravagant stock options, it's their right.
And I'm not one to say, ok, anything over 10 million dollars is taxed at 90% sort of thing. I'd rather see that money go back spread among employees vs. the government. Employee ownership or something maybe.
Help me out, 30/40/50 years ago, a blue collar worker, like my Dad, could earn a good living, live in a decent house, have a couple cars and a wife who stayed at home all on one salary. That seems almost undoable currently.
In my utopia, everyone who works at a full time job (even at Walmart) should be able to afford food, housing, transportation and healthcare on one salary, offering the opportunity for the other parent to stay at home and raise kids.
Go ahead and rip me a new one on this!
Could part of this be because for all that time the United States had been the dominant economic power in the world? Therefore, it was being done at the expense of workers ex-United States?
Does your utopia include the entire world or just citizens of the United States?
Walmart's (and Amazon's) low prices have put a lot of money into American consumer's pockets to spend elsewhere.
Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
yankees60 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 9:29 am
Could part of this be because for all that time the United States had been the dominant economic power in the world? Therefore, it was being done at the expense of workers ex-United States?
Does your utopia include the entire world or just citizens of the United States?
Walmart's (and Amazon's) low prices have put a lot of money into American consumer's pockets to spend elsewhere.
1) Isn't that today's model? Aren't we exploiting overseas workers more now than we did back then when more mfg was still in the US?
2) Ideally, the world...
3) Sure.
Bezos is worth 175 billion. Amazon has 1,000,000 employees. How would things be different if, say, Bezos limited himself personally to 1 billion in wealth, and the other 174 billion over the years instead were stock options/grants to every employee as a benefit? If spread around right now equally, that is $174,000 in the pockets of every employee, either in stock or cash.
Life changing for a ton of people.
I don't have the answer, other than if we continue the way we are, we will look more and more like India. Rich people surrounded by slums and not a lot in the middle.
As someone who has had direct experience with Bezos' operation, his advantage has nothing to do with free market forces, and the excessive power he wields in relation to employees and contractors is anything but a bargained-for exchange. My own view is that many of his most profitable businesses would fail were he required to compete on a level playing field along with everybody else.
He is known for his ruthless pursuit of self-interest--everyone else be damned. People are fungible commodities and are regarded as an unfortunate fact of life that must be dealt with until such time as they can be replaced by artificial intelligence. Many of the contract workers he uses are from third world countries who earn the equivalent of $1.00 per hour.
He enjoys, for whatever reason, a very special relationship with the power brokers in Washington. He receives, apparently free from competition, high-level government contracts of many kinds, and, due to the fact that a good part of U.S. intelligence has been entrusted to his custodianship, he has access to the most highly classified information on the planet. This unprecedented enmeshment with the U.S. government qualifies him, I believe, to be fairly characterized as a governmental agency acting (illegally) outside of the purview of Congress. As a result, he enjoys a de facto monopoly supported and enabled by U.S. taxpayers--which, of course, is the classical definition of economic fascism.
Bottom line: You don't need government to intervene to artificially redistribute wealth if you enforce existing legal constraints against monopolistic behavior and private-public enmeshments.
Last edited by Maddy on Tue Sep 29, 2020 10:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
yankees60 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 9:29 am
Could part of this be because for all that time the United States had been the dominant economic power in the world? Therefore, it was being done at the expense of workers ex-United States?
Does your utopia include the entire world or just citizens of the United States?
Walmart's (and Amazon's) low prices have put a lot of money into American consumer's pockets to spend elsewhere.
1) Isn't that today's model? Aren't we exploiting overseas workers more now than we did back then when more mfg was still in the US?
2) Ideally, the world...
3) Sure.
Bezos is worth 175 billion. Amazon has 1,000,000 employees. How would things be different if, say, Bezos limited himself personally to 1 billion in wealth, and the other 174 billion over the years instead were stock options/grants to every employee as a benefit? If spread around right now equally, that is $174,000 in the pockets of every employee, either in stock or cash.
Life changing for a ton of people.
I don't have the answer, other than if we continue the way we are, we will look more and more like India. Rich people surrounded by slums and not a lot in the middle.
1) I'd say that we are exploiting them less. From our first world perspective it seems that they are being exploited. However, from the workers' point of view they are getting opportunities previously never available to them.
2) Then we need to be able to give up some of prior privileges to share in the bounty and not keep it all to ourselves.
At one point Bezos was worth $6 billion. And, then Amazon's stock took a dive and his Amazon stock was worth "only" $2 billion.
His work has made tons of Amazon employee's rich. However, those Amazon employees had to earn it in one way or the other.
He's given tons and tons of people opportunities that they would not have had elsewhere.
Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
I don't think that anyone would argue that Bezos / Amazon has any kind of special GOOD relationship with Trump.
In theory, any of us could have created Amazon.
He and his original cohorts started with no special, unfair advantages.
They worked extremely hard and took a lot of risks - the American Dream!
Barnes & Noble was so arrogant at Amazon's beginnings they tried to buy Amazon.
But Bezos clung to his dream and persevered and never accepted the easy, short-term way out.
Sam Walton / the Walmart way has been one of Bezos's guiding ways for himself to conduct business.
His goal has always been to provide the customer the best experience, which includes offering the lowest prices available.
He's been a genius in all that he has done. Made a lot of mistakes along the way but Amazon should be revered as one of the genuine achievements of American capitalism.
Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
Maddy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 10:03 am
As someone who has had direct experience with Bezos' operation, his advantage has nothing to do with free market forces, and the excessive power he wields in relation to employees and contractors is anything but a bargained-for exchange. My own view is that many of his most profitable businesses would fail were he required to compete on a level playing field along with everybody else.
He is known for his ruthless pursuit of self-interest--everyone else be damned. People are fungible commodities and are regarded as an unfortunate fact of life that must be dealt with until such time as they can be replaced by artificial intelligence. Many of the contract workers he uses are from third world countries who earn the equivalent of $1.00 per hour.
He enjoys, for whatever reason, a very special relationship with the power brokers in Washington. He receives, apparently free from competition, high-level government contracts of many kinds, and, due to the fact that a good part of U.S. intelligence has been entrusted to his custodianship, he has access to the most highly classified information on the planet. This unprecedented enmeshment with the U.S. government qualifies him, I believe, to be fairly characterized as a governmental agency acting (illegally) outside of the purview of Congress. As a result, he enjoys a de facto monopoly supported and enabled by U.S. taxpayers--which, of course, is the classical definition of economic fascism.
Bottom line: You don't need government to intervene to artificially redistribute wealth if you enforce existing legal constraints against monopolistic behavior and private-public enmeshments.
Kbg wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 8:41 am
Yes, back to taxes.
Some things are systemic and our tax code enables these things. It is what it is because both parties bake in goodies for their constituents. Do that for a 100 years or so and it gets pretty insane. However, try to remove a goodie and people go crazy. In my world taxes would go something like this.
- Flat or graduated with zero deductions for anything
- Social Security & Medicare flat or graduated with all income taxed
- Business taxes are much more difficult...but I think the easiest thing would be to allow structures, material cost of goods and wages as the only business deductibles allowed. Flat corporate tax or no corporate tax if all annual earnings (or a high percentage were distributed each year like a REIT)
Segmenting now to an earlier comment...it wouldn't matter if a blue collar guy had access to a premier tax attorney who took him on pro bono because there's nothing the attorney could do for him.
None of this would ever happen though, think how many attorneys and accountants (highly paid ones) would be out of work.
Complexity is employment.
Can you describe why you need to tax corporate incomes as well as personal incomes? It seems to me that taxing exclusively personal incomes would be best. A whole class of enormously complex tax law would be unnecessary. America would become the world's tax haven instead of the other way around. And the government still get taxes whenever anybody actually wants to take any of that money out.
I'd be completely cool with that as long as profits were required to be fully distributed annually and personal perks were not expensible. (In reality there needs to be retained earnings but I would say they also need to be put into play within a short period of time).
Businesses are complex and serious people have to take that complexity into account. But imagine a world where business owners and CEOs get the same deal from a taxation point as everyone else who does not own a business. I don't get to deduct my mileage coming to work but I do if I'm driving to the airport via reimbursement if I'm going on a business trip. Why is that? Why do I and my government not subsidize my business (employer) when I'm driving to work? How come I don't get deduct those miles and/or get reimbursed for them? I need to get to Singapore for a business trip. We have an entire industry that is super efficient on getting people from point A to B on airplanes...why do I and my government subsidize corporate jets beyond at most first class airfare? Why do I personally get a 457 plan when my blue collar mom and dad never even had that as an option? Why am I personally liable, but corporations have limited liability. (Personally I agree with limited liability NOT including corporate assets).
For me it's a fairness issue, but again, with businesses it's complex which I get. But the principle is...equal access to equal bennies or none at all.
Kbg wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 11:51 amI'd be completely cool with that as long as profits were required to be fully distributed annually and personal perks were not expensible. (In reality there needs to be retained earnings but I would say they also need to be put into play within a short period of time).
I'm not understanding this part. Why can't the company keep money in the coffers? It still gets taxed when it comes out.
Personal perks are taxed as income by the recipient. They ARE company expenses.
Kbg wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 8:41 am
Yes, back to taxes.
Some things are systemic and our tax code enables these things. It is what it is because both parties bake in goodies for their constituents. Do that for a 100 years or so and it gets pretty insane. However, try to remove a goodie and people go crazy. In my world taxes would go something like this.
- Flat or graduated with zero deductions for anything
- Social Security & Medicare flat or graduated with all income taxed
- Business taxes are much more difficult...but I think the easiest thing would be to allow structures, material cost of goods and wages as the only business deductibles allowed. Flat corporate tax or no corporate tax if all annual earnings (or a high percentage were distributed each year like a REIT)
Segmenting now to an earlier comment...it wouldn't matter if a blue collar guy had access to a premier tax attorney who took him on pro bono because there's nothing the attorney could do for him.
None of this would ever happen though, think how many attorneys and accountants (highly paid ones) would be out of work.
Complexity is employment.
Can you describe why you need to tax corporate incomes as well as personal incomes? It seems to me that taxing exclusively personal incomes would be best. A whole class of enormously complex tax law would be unnecessary. America would become the world's tax haven instead of the other way around. And the government still get taxes whenever anybody actually wants to take any of that money out.
I'd be completely cool with that as long as profits were required to be fully distributed annually and personal perks were not expensible. (In reality there needs to be retained earnings but I would say they also need to be put into play within a short period of time).
Businesses are complex and serious people have to take that complexity into account. But imagine a world where business owners and CEOs get the same deal from a taxation point as everyone else who does not own a business. I don't get to deduct my mileage coming to work but I do if I'm driving to the airport via reimbursement if I'm going on a business trip. Why is that? Why do I and my government not subsidize my business (employer) when I'm driving to work? How come I don't get deduct those miles and/or get reimbursed for them? I need to get to Singapore for a business trip. We have an entire industry that is super efficient on getting people from point A to B on airplanes...why do I and my government subsidize corporate jets beyond at most first class airfare? Why do I personally get a 457 plan when my blue collar mom and dad never even had that as an option? Why am I personally liable, but corporations have limited liability. (Personally I agree with limited liability NOT including corporate assets).
For me it's a fairness issue, but again, with businesses it's complex which I get. But the principle is...equal access to equal bennies or none at all.
One of the worst of all is the tax treatment of health insurance if you are getting it through your employer (highly favorable) versus paying for it on your own (not so favorable).
And, finally, is there ANY reason why health insurance should be provided by an employer and NOT on your own just like all the other insurance's you purchase?
Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
Kbg wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 11:51 amI'd be completely cool with that as long as profits were required to be fully distributed annually and personal perks were not expensible. (In reality there needs to be retained earnings but I would say they also need to be put into play within a short period of time).
I'm not understanding this part. Why can't the company keep money in the coffers? It still gets taxed when it comes out.
Personal perks are taxed as income by the recipient. They ARE company expenses.
The IRS actually has a tax on undistributed retained earnings if the corporation cannot prove that it has a legitimate reason for having those retained earnings of a certain size. The amount that the IRS starts challenging at is ridiculously tiny.
And, I believe Kbg was referring to personal perks that are in the gray area - like company provided vehicles, meals, and so on.
Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
yankees60 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 12:11 pmAnd, finally, is there ANY reason why health insurance should be provided by an employer and NOT on your own just like all the other insurance's you purchase?
My understanding is that this was a holdover from WWII rules which capped/froze employee payments, but allowed benefits. The connection between employment and health insurance has been an unmitigated disaster.
Kbg wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 8:41 am
Yes, back to taxes.
Some things are systemic and our tax code enables these things. It is what it is because both parties bake in goodies for their constituents. Do that for a 100 years or so and it gets pretty insane. However, try to remove a goodie and people go crazy. In my world taxes would go something like this.
- Flat or graduated with zero deductions for anything
- Social Security & Medicare flat or graduated with all income taxed
- Business taxes are much more difficult...but I think the easiest thing would be to allow structures, material cost of goods and wages as the only business deductibles allowed. Flat corporate tax or no corporate tax if all annual earnings (or a high percentage were distributed each year like a REIT)
Segmenting now to an earlier comment...it wouldn't matter if a blue collar guy had access to a premier tax attorney who took him on pro bono because there's nothing the attorney could do for him.
None of this would ever happen though, think how many attorneys and accountants (highly paid ones) would be out of work.
Complexity is employment.
Can you describe why you need to tax corporate incomes as well as personal incomes? It seems to me that taxing exclusively personal incomes would be best. A whole class of enormously complex tax law would be unnecessary. America would become the world's tax haven instead of the other way around. And the government still get taxes whenever anybody actually wants to take any of that money out.
I'd be completely cool with that as long as profits were required to be fully distributed annually and personal perks were not expensible. (In reality there needs to be retained earnings but I would say they also need to be put into play within a short period of time).
Businesses are complex and serious people have to take that complexity into account. But imagine a world where business owners and CEOs get the same deal from a taxation point as everyone else who does not own a business. I don't get to deduct my mileage coming to work but I do if I'm driving to the airport via reimbursement if I'm going on a business trip. Why is that? Why do I and my government not subsidize my business (employer) when I'm driving to work? How come I don't get deduct those miles and/or get reimbursed for them? I need to get to Singapore for a business trip. We have an entire industry that is super efficient on getting people from point A to B on airplanes...why do I and my government subsidize corporate jets beyond at most first class airfare? Why do I personally get a 457 plan when my blue collar mom and dad never even had that as an option? Why am I personally liable, but corporations have limited liability. (Personally I agree with limited liability NOT including corporate assets).
For me it's a fairness issue, but again, with businesses it's complex which I get. But the principle is...equal access to equal bennies or none at all.
One of the worst of all is the tax treatment of health insurance if you are getting it through your employer (highly favorable) versus paying for it on your own (not so favorable).
And, finally, is there ANY reason why health insurance should be provided by an employer and NOT on your own just like all the other insurance's you purchase?
Vinny
Health insurance (like any insurance) works best when the risk is distributed over as big a population as possible. Health insurance should be nationalized...there is no need for private health insurance. They provide no added value in my estimation...risk calculation is an automated process nowadays. No need for middle men stripping out profit from this business. Simply calculate the risk and set the rates.
Kbg wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 11:51 amI'd be completely cool with that as long as profits were required to be fully distributed annually and personal perks were not expensible. (In reality there needs to be retained earnings but I would say they also need to be put into play within a short period of time).
I'm not understanding this part. Why can't the company keep money in the coffers? It still gets taxed when it comes out.
Personal perks are taxed as income by the recipient. They ARE company expenses.
Why are Donald Trump's haircuts tax deductible expenses and mine aren't? Don't I have to look presentable at work? Sorry, I have an axe to grind, but I'm so tired of the corruption among the upper echelon. I'm tired of this two tiered system. I'm tired of people on welfare catching criticism while big business has been bailed out to the tune of trillions of dollars twice in the last 10 years. I lament that the occupy movement wasn't able to gain traction. I want change, I'm angry.
Eh, Trump should have just released his tax return when requested in the first place. The same ridiculous feeding frenzy by the woefully uninformed would have occurred, but it would have been over and done with 4 years ago and (like Russia-gate) essentially a non-issue now.
One thing that everyone keeps forgetting: the chances are basically zero that Trump has anything to do with his tax filings other than to sign where his accountants tell him to. I can barely wrap my head around my tax return, and it's a thousand times simpler than this. What I'd like to see, for a reasonable comparison, is Jeff Bezos', Bill Gates', Elon Musk's, and Warren Buffet's tax returns. I bet virtually everything that the NY Times proclaimed in their little hit piece would apply equally well to them.
WiseOne wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 12:50 pm
What I'd like to see, for a reasonable comparison, is Jeff Bezos', Bill Gates', Elon Musk's, and Warren Buffet's tax returns. I bet virtually everything that the NY Times proclaimed in their little hit piece would apply equally well to them.
They haven't run for president. Trump probably could be whistling down 5th Avenue right now a gazillion dollars in debt, and no one would care. But he's president.
If he really has 400+ million in personally guaranteed loans, my God, what kind of things might something like that cause you to do in decision making? Yeah, Donnie, I'll knock 50 million off what you owe me if you help get this law passed...
yankees60 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 12:11 pmAnd, finally, is there ANY reason why health insurance should be provided by an employer and NOT on your own just like all the other insurance's you purchase?
My understanding is that this was a holdover from WWII rules which capped/froze employee payments, but allowed benefits. The connection between employment and health insurance has been an unmitigated disaster.
You understanding is correct. My question is why is this not subject to change? Is ANY party proposing to do so?
Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
Cortopassi wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 1:04 pm
If he really has 400+ million in personally guaranteed loans, my God, what kind of things might something like that cause you to do in decision making? Yeah, Donnie, I'll knock 50 million off what you owe me if you help get this law passed...
Is there any evidence of someone bribing Trump in this way?
You could take the flip side of this: a (relatively) poor schmuck like Obama when he was elected might be a lot more susceptible to things like "I'll invite you and your family to my posh estate in Florida for a prolonged 'fund-raising' visit if you'll help me get this law passed." I remember scoring this as a point in Trump's favor in 2016, that he would be immune to most of the usual forms of bribery.
Speaking of which, why aren't you even more upset about the obvious bribery situation of Hunter Biden's miraculous job at Burisma? That's not a theoretical situation, it actually happened.
Cortopassi wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 1:04 pm
If he really has 400+ million in personally guaranteed loans, my God, what kind of things might something like that cause you to do in decision making? Yeah, Donnie, I'll knock 50 million off what you owe me if you help get this law passed...
Is there any evidence of someone bribing Trump in this way?
You could take the flip side of this: a (relatively) poor schmuck like Obama when he was elected might be a lot more susceptible to things like "I'll invite you and your family to my posh estate in Florida for a prolonged 'fund-raising' visit if you'll help me get this law passed." I remember scoring this as a point in Trump's favor in 2016, that he would be immune to most of the usual forms of bribery.
Speaking of which, why aren't you even more upset about the obvious bribery situation of Hunter Biden's miraculous job at Burisma? That's not a theoretical situation, it actually happened.
Oh, I do hope Biden continued to get hit with that as well. No way Hunter gets that job without Daddy. No clear way to spin that for him.
I understand your Obama flipside, for sure.
I have no evidence, that was tongue in cheek. But I can see that these loans coming due during a second term, could, at minimum, cause him to lose focus on being president.
Cortopassi wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 1:21 pm
But I can see that these loans coming due during a second term, could, at minimum, cause him to lose focus on being president.
You know it's the debt to equity ratio that makes a difference don't you? The absolute value of the debt doesn't make any difference at all, even if it sounds huge to you and I.
If you/your company has assets far exceeding your debt (or a demonstrable cash flow), then your bank (or some other bank) will just refi the debt for you when it comes due. They'll be lining up to do it.
Cortopassi wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 1:21 pm
But I can see that these loans coming due during a second term, could, at minimum, cause him to lose focus on being president.
You know it's the debt to equity ratio that makes a difference don't you? The absolute value of the debt doesn't make any difference at all, even if it sounds huge to you and I.
If you / your company has assets far exceeding your debt, then your bank (or some other bank) will just refi the debt for you when it comes due. They'll be lining up to do it.
Unless you are continuing to have losses and there does not seem to be any liquidity to pay the debt. But, than again, banks may continue to support you because to not means a certain bad debt on the part of the bank while continuing to support you leaves some hope of eventual paying off of the debt. The banks always need to decide when the point is reaching of "throwing good money after bad". Also depends what the nature of your assets are. How susceptible they are to fluctuation, the possibilities of the assets no longer far exceeding your debt. In another post I cited the case wherein Bezos's asset in Amazon fell from $6 billion to $2 billion in not that short a time period. Bank happy to extend him a $1.5 billion line of credit when he was worth $6 billion? How about when it was down to $2 billion? And, it looked like Amazon could go out of business?
Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
Cortopassi wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 1:21 pm
But I can see that these loans coming due during a second term, could, at minimum, cause him to lose focus on being president.
You know it's the debt to equity ratio that makes a difference don't you? The absolute value of the debt doesn't make any difference at all, even if it sounds huge to you and I.
If you/your company has assets far exceeding your debt (or a demonstrable cash flow), then your bank (or some other bank) will just refi the debt for you when it comes due. They'll be lining up to do it.
Of course. Regardless, will it not weigh on his mind? (Actually for Trump, it probably won't) And yeah, they'll have to refinance, most likely because they don't want to take a loss.
Cortopassi wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 1:21 pm
But I can see that these loans coming due during a second term, could, at minimum, cause him to lose focus on being president.
You know it's the debt to equity ratio that makes a difference don't you? The absolute value of the debt doesn't make any difference at all, even if it sounds huge to you and I.
If you / your company has assets far exceeding your debt, then your bank (or some other bank) will just refi the debt for you when it comes due. They'll be lining up to do it.
Unless you are continuing to have losses and there does not seem to be any liquidity to pay the debt. But, than again, banks may continue to support you because to not means a certain bad debt on the part of the bank while continuing to support you leaves some hope of eventual paying off of the debt. The banks always need to decide when the point is reaching of "throwing good money after bad". Also depends what the nature of your assets are. How susceptible they are to fluctuation, the possibilities of the assets no longer far exceeding your debt. In another post I cited the case wherein Bezos's asset in Amazon fell from $6 billion to $2 billion in not that short a time period. Bank happy to extend him a $1.5 billion line of credit when he was worth $6 billion? How about when it was down to $2 billion? And, it looked like Amazon could go out of business?
Vinny
My point was that just knowing the size of the debt tells us zip, zero, nothing about whether this is an issue or not.
Certainly the Times must have people on staff that know the basics of how this works. Vinnie threw it together in a few seconds.
Yet they don't even mention it. It is unbridled fear mongering for the purpose of spreading FUD. Yellow journalism.
Cortopassi wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 1:21 pm
But I can see that these loans coming due during a second term, could, at minimum, cause him to lose focus on being president.
You know it's the debt to equity ratio that makes a difference don't you? The absolute value of the debt doesn't make any difference at all, even if it sounds huge to you and I.
If you / your company has assets far exceeding your debt, then your bank (or some other bank) will just refi the debt for you when it comes due. They'll be lining up to do it.
Unless you are continuing to have losses and there does not seem to be any liquidity to pay the debt. But, than again, banks may continue to support you because to not means a certain bad debt on the part of the bank while continuing to support you leaves some hope of eventual paying off of the debt. The banks always need to decide when the point is reaching of "throwing good money after bad". Also depends what the nature of your assets are. How susceptible they are to fluctuation, the possibilities of the assets no longer far exceeding your debt. In another post I cited the case wherein Bezos's asset in Amazon fell from $6 billion to $2 billion in not that short a time period. Bank happy to extend him a $1.5 billion line of credit when he was worth $6 billion? How about when it was down to $2 billion? And, it looked like Amazon could go out of business?
Vinny
My point was that just knowing the size of the debt tells us zip, zero, nothing about whether this is an issue or not.
Certainly the Times must have people on staff that know the basics of how this works. Vinnie threw it together in a few seconds.
Yet they don't even mention it. It is unbridled fear mongering for the purpose of spreading FUD. Yellow journalism.
Yes, the NY Times should be renamed from "The Gray Lady" to "The Yellow Woman".
Or is that too sexist?
Why are so many here quick to jump on Obama/Biden/Clinton and so forgiving towards Trump? Let's look at just the facts...Trump has been an extremely controversial figure his entire career. He has been engaged in constant lawsuits, feuds, and bankruptcies throughout his career as well as multiple failed marriages and close associations with Epstein and accusations from underage girls of innapropriate behaviior. Many of his former staff have been arrested and convicted. A large number of his former executive branch appointees have come out to say he is completely incapable as a leader. His own family members have criticized his sociopathic / narcisstic behavior. He has hired friends and family to fill governmental roles and his tax returns indicate that there is definitely something complicated and strange going on with his finances. Yet, despite all of these red flags so many here defend his innocence? I just don't get it.
