Apple expected to repatriate $214 billion to the U.S.; expect increased buybacks and dividends, not big acquisitions

“With the new tax structure we expect Apple will bring $214 billion back to the U.S. using a 15.5% one-time repatriation tax rate,” Gene Munster writes for Loup Ventures. “We don’t expect this cash will change Apple’s M&A philosophy, which will likely continue to be focused on sub-$1 billion technology acquisitions.”

“We do anticipate Apple will increase its share buyback by $69 billion, which will be added to the $166 billion that Apple has already spent on share repurchases from Jun-2012 to Sep-2017,” Munster writes. “Additionally, we expect Apple will increase its annual dividend by 15%, higher than the 10% increase they announced in April of both 2017 and 2016.”

“We believe Apple will maintain its debt level at the $104 billion. In theory this will leave Apple with about $150B in cash, but in practice it won’t get that low,” Munster writes. “To give a sense of Apple’s current cash generation, the company generated $31 billion in cash from Sep-16 to Sep-17. If we assume $30 billion in annual cash generation for the next 4 years implies a 2022 cash ending balance of $270 billion, unchanged from the $269B today.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: To quote Carl Sagan, “Billions and billions.”

AAPL shareholders will likely be happy if this comes to pass.

We’ll be happy when that gorgeous silver cylinder of pre-Christmas Christmas beer is tapped! Posthaste, beloved interns, posthaste!

Prost, everyone!

SEE ALSO:
Apple notches big league win with U.S. Republican tax cuts, but faces snag with taxes on foreign patents – December 21, 2017
Congressional Republicans deliver epic overhaul of U.S. tax laws to President Donald Trump – December 20, 2017

116 Comments

    1. Goeb makes statements of faith as if he was Nostradamus.

      I ask you about your personal financial planning. Let’s assume you are mature, still working, but lots of life left to plan for. Now you can convince everyone that you’re having a midlife crisis, but objectively, what do you do to balance your budget for current and future needs? You may want a slush fund for foreseeable disaster (fires and hurricanes). You will want to invest in your diet and health (medicaid, medicare, aha). You will want to keep yourself mentally sharp to be employable and competitive via continuing education (school grants and standards). Do you decide because you’re stressed in this new hyper competitive world that cutting your income will make you more prosperous? All while doing nothing to restrain your lifestyle?????

      Well that’s what Trump is telling you. If you slash federal income and add an estimated $1.4 trillion onto the national credit card, and don’t cut spending or invest for the future, then you will be great.

      I don’t buy it. Trump claims oligarchs need the money. If he wanted to stimulate economic growth, he would reform taxes to put more money to work in small businesses, infrastructure, education, and other national investments that pay huge dividends. Handing multinational corporations rebate checks , and not simplifying or cutting loopholes, just keeps corporate tax attorneys well employed for the next several years.

      You and I will not be able to do our taxes on the back of a postcard as promised. Payroll taxes are as high as ever. Worst of all, the incentive to work at building something is more reduced since capital gains are taxed less than income from labor. Think about this. If you have money to invest, then your corrupt government would rather you speculate with your money than hire new employees. Read the goddamn bill, don’t drink the stupid trickle down kool aide.

      Mark my words, the Trump tax cut will implode the economy in a few years, just like the gipper’s first tax cuts, just like dubya’s unfunded wars and medicare part D, and yes, just like Kennedy’s ill timed tax reforms. Short term sugar rush followed by decades of stagnation. Happened every time.

      True tax reform would lower personal income taxes and payroll taxes, slash loopholes, and reduce spending without handing it all to oligarchs. This bill is a gift to multinational globalists.

      1. The giveaway in your opinion analysis is that both Reagan and JFK tax cuts did not work, so you are saying tax cuts NEVER WORK. That is false IMHO.

        It would be foolish to then flip the equation and say high taxes work. Well, if that were the case why does Apple and many corporation behemoths HIDE THEIR CASH OUTSIDE THE U.S., hmmm?

        Give it time …

        1. Reality didn’t say NEVER. Putting words in other people’s mouths is the giveaway that you can’t win the debate either.

          Reagan raised taxes several times inbetween the two different tax cuts you lionize endlessly. But you conveniently forget that the Reagan tax tinkering took years of bipartisan work. Your party in 2017 just rammed through a package that appears to have been written by corporate lawyers, not the people’s representatives.

          You also conveniently forget that the 1980’s saw rapid acceleration of outsourcing, stagnant wage growth in manufacturing, and a mild recession was handed to George HW Bush. It might have been worse but Reagan was happy to use debt spending (stimulus under another name) of government military largesse in peacetime to outspend all other militaries in the world combined. Americans are still paying for that.

          In large part it was the IT revolution, with Microsoft and Apple and others, that make you so fondly reminiscent for the 1980s.

          1. “Reality didn’t say NEVER. Putting words in other people’s mouths is the giveaway that you can’t win the debate either.”

            Yes, I know what Reality said — OPINION. My post was about interpretation of that posted opinion and my own opinion as well. I don’t speak for others, simply try to understand where they are coming from.

            “Reagan raised taxes several times inbetween the two different tax cuts you lionize endlessly. But you conveniently forget that the Reagan tax tinkering took years of bipartisan work.”

            Conveniently forget nothing. Where in God’s good name is that coming from? President Reagan indeed liked and worked well with the Tipster for many years. But you may be the one conveniently forgetting something.

            The Democratic Party of the early 1980s and present day are as different as night and day. The Democrats passed Obamacare unanimously without a single Republican vote in control of all branches of government. The Republicans passed tax cuts unanimously without a single Democrat vote in control of all branches of government.

            Bottom line: What goes around, comes around. I love karma, don’t you?

            “Your party in 2017 just rammed through a package that appears to have been written by corporate lawyers, not the people’s representatives.”

            I have written this here on MDN dozens of times over the years. Obviously, with some people it will never SINK IN. Lifetime registered independent voter here. So you are wrong, again.

            I do however enthusiastically support the Republican Party platform after watching the Democrats since the 1960s when I first started paying attention. Decades of hollow words, real debt and the same old, same old problems STILL unresolved. As the unions are fond of saying, “job security.”

            Fingers crossed it will work out better than tax cuts under JFK and Reagan. But, we shall see.

            “You also conveniently forget that the 1980’s saw rapid acceleration of outsourcing, stagnant wage growth in manufacturing, and a mild recession was handed to George HW Bush.”

            I told you once and here once again — I forget next to nothing. STOP putting thoughts in my head!

            “It might have been worse but Reagan was happy to use debt spending (stimulus under another name) of government military largesse in peacetime to outspend all other militaries in the world combined. Americans are still paying for that.”

            First off, Americans have been paying for debt under presidents of both parties since 1969, the last time the federal budget was balanced. Oh, possibly you forget history?

            Reagan’s huge mistake was making a deal with the Democrat “good meaning” Devils at the time. His successful tax cuts were overflowing the U.S. treasury and in a weak deal agreed to increase spending. Problem with that in very SIMPLE terms later in the Reagan years, for every dollar coming in, two dollars were spent. Ah, yes that leads to deficits.

            “In large part it was the IT revolution, with Microsoft and Apple and others, that make you so fondly reminiscent for the 1980s.”

            Yes indeed, “fondly reminiscent” of the 1980s. Tax cuts working, booming economy with huge salaries and a feel good president liked by all parties and the American people. The music was much better almost free of RAP. President Reagan stared down the Soviet Union and the wall came down in East Germany, just to name a few.

            In the 1980s, Apple was the biggest dog in the tech universe! Windows released the first version in 1986 and Apple immediately drug them into court until the case was resolved in May 1992, if I remember correctly. After winning the court case, Microsoft released Windows 95 and went on to conquer Apple and the tech world, almost leading to Apple’s total demise until prodigal Steve returned to the iCEO helm around 1996.

            SORRY, Sarah. You certainly don’t know jack, about what I know and what I forget. Much less the 1980s … 🤔

            1. What I remember about the eighties is that I turned twenty-one and could legally buy alcohol. I got an actual boyfriend. I learnt to operate the IBM XT, and parlayed that into an industrial job and never looked back. The popular music at the time was horrid. Ronald Reagan was endearing like an Irish uncle of mine, but I distrusted his witch of a wife who consulted an astrologer about White House policy-making. And the two of them were Hollywood actors. I supposed that was better than both being lawyers. But today I would think wait, what—?

            2. Late 1970s I was able to legally purchase alcohol, so not that far apart in years. Yeah, I also had an actual girlfriend back then six years older than me. An original Irish/Italian cougar ahead of her time. 😊 I don’t remember the IBM XT, but certainly sounds like your big tech dog understanding at the time led to a prosperous career and if my guess is right from previous posts, you retired early. 👍🏻 Some of the 80s pop artists had a good beat like select lists from Duran Duran, Bangles, B-52’s and others. 1970s Prog Rock pioneer YES scored their FIRST number one single with “Owner of a Lonely Heart.” My favorite probably was a Scottish band singing “In a Big Country.” Hmmm, that may apply to our current POTUS. 😉 Hollywood actors or lawyers in the big house. I’ll go with the latest tinsel town successful series installment. Now, admittedly I’m paraphrasing here and don’t remember the exact quote. Something along the lines of actor President Reagan turned out to be president and President Bill Clinton turned out to be actor. Something like that. That said, 1980s was indeed, VERY good times … 👍🏻😀🍻🍾🍢

            3. You are always good for a laugh, a nudge and a wink. I see you appreciate older women—funny, it used to be “old” women, but then political correctness started setting in. Yes, that’s right, political correctness started not so much due to racism and sexism but because of AGEISM. I fear that both you and I are slated to be retired to the sludge bins soon, kicked to the kerb by insensitive millenials, damn their vacant eyes.

            4. Thanks, Herself. 😊

              I suspect the “insensitive millennials” need help to grow up well rounded with critical thinking skills. This whole snowflake movement needs a serious reality check. I am less worried about battle tested US than THEM.

              Happy and prosperous New Year! … 🍾🎉

        2. ATTENTION: actual economic data below, disconnected from the partisan rhetoric and propaganda that pervades this site.

          Trickle down fans tell you that tax cuts are always good for them, because they believe the federal government is inherently incompetent, only huge unelected corporate bureaucracy could possibly know what to do with your money. Except if it goes to weapons, then the federal government is perfect and we should all support our troops in endless overseas offensive oil crusades.

          The Voodoo economists tell you that by drowning the federal government in debt (so international bankers can make money lending to Uncle Sam, you think?) then economic growth will be unleashed. What they refuse to do is demonstrate what trickles down or REQUIRE that employers increase hiring. None of these so-called economists knows if the rich will pocket their money or spread it around. They just know that greed is a great campaign tactic. Promise the plebiscite a tax break, but steer most of it to campaign donors. AT&T and Bank of America for example.

          What we do know is debt is a drag on your budget, and also a drag on national prosperity. Look at the plot below: republican presidents rang up debt. The growth DID NOT pay off the debt. In fact, democratic presidents have in the last generation have had to cull military overreaching and yes raise funds to pay for off the books BS that republicans have done over and over. Republicans Still they were able to bring the deficit down. LOOK AT THE DATA. The incessant right wing propagandists on this site don’t ever show you what a horrid track record that their poorly designed tax breaks for the rich have always done. The DEBT WAS NOT PAID OFF.

          There is a time and a place to cut taxes, but this bill is a giveaway that does nothing to simplify the tax code or promote domestic wage growth. Unless of course if you consider holiday part time jobs at untaxed Amazon distributing disposable Chinese plastic junk to be full employment. Companies like Apple don’t need the money as much as underemployed Americans do.

          1. @Scott K.

            “ATTENTION: actual economic data below, disconnected from the partisan rhetoric and propaganda that pervades this site.”

            ATTENTION: the picture of so called “actual economic data” is MISSING CRITICAL SOURCING and impartial transparent data collection by an independent and unbiased source. In layman terms, it is unscientific and certainly not credible.

            You believe it? I have been seeing the same type of chart for years circulated in handouts by Democrat unions at election time. Unless empirical unbiased data EVIDENCE behind the picture surfaces, simply suggest don’t be a tool, or better yet, a fool for anybody. THINK CRITICALLY.

            As to the rest of your post, you certainly have FULL command of all the boogeyman terms used by Democrats to denigrate EVERYONE they do not support. Fine if you enjoy that sorta thing, but does nothing to advance the country.

            I’ll comment on one graf in your stereotypical screed (below).

            “The incessant right wing propagandists on this site don’t ever show you what a horrid track record that their poorly designed tax breaks for the rich have always done. The DEBT WAS NOT PAID OFF.”

            To be fair and balanced, what about the incessant LEFT wing propagandists on this site? Ahhh, don’t bother.

            You’re absolutely right, “The DEBT WAS NOT PAID OFF.” Not by Carter, Clinton or Obama. Not by Nixon, Ford, Reagan, H. W. Bush, George Bush or Trump.

            Historical FACT: The national debt has been accumulating daily since 1969. If you want to get into a pissing match that my Democrat President generated less debt in his term than your Republican President in his term, OK FINE.

            Obama doubled the national debt in EIGHT YEARS. More than ALL combined presidents going back to George Washington who took office on April 30, 1789. You lose.

            If your MAIN point is to pin DEBT SQUARELY on Republicans you are sadly mistaken and know little of economic and political history …

            1. Goeb, always brainwashed, never able to bring forth any data.

              It cannot be more clear that you don’t think, you are incapable of independent thought. As a political religious zealot, you refuse to ever consider anything that contradicts your party platform. You strut in lock step with every political position that your party propagandists tell you, there is no room debate in your narrow world view. Anyone who doesn’t fly your banner is the enemy. Just as stupid and unproductive as any religious war or tech intolerance that this site promotes.

              Thankfully, Goeb, while you choose to ignore data that you don’t want to hear, the majority of people are willing to open their minds.

    2. You will notice that when I extrapolate the future, I am “Dr. If.” When GeoB or botvinnik do the same, they are just being faithful prophets proclaiming the Gospel of Our Lord and Savior Donald Trump.

      Has anyone seen his long-form birth certificate? Is it possible he was born in Bethlehem?

      No mortal man deserves this sort of unreasoning faith. It is a violation of the First Commandment.

      1. My ONE “extrapolation” is based on history of tax cuts under Reagan and JFK.

        Unlike you, Dr. IF, that extrapolates dozens of times in a single (opinion) post that we have noticed ALWAYS DENIGRATES Republicans and NEVER DENIGRATES Democrats.

        And we all know you are never going to admit your false and deceptive game.

        Conservative my arse! 🐂💩🐂💩🐂💩

  1. To all of you ‘economists’, we should all hope that corporations do as well as possible. Company paid Retirement plans, individual retirement plans, 401Ks, IRAs, all are managed by companies/people that invest those plans in corporations. The better the corporations do, the better the plans do, and the more money earned/saved in retirement plans.

    1. To follow up, what is your better alternative? What if government taxed corporations at 90%? What if the government limited corporate salaries to $300K per year. That would add dollars to the bottom line, of courses, but the government would get 90% of that also, and how would corporations compete for the best talent to run the companies? Believe it or not, running a company takes enormous talent and hard earned experience that is not that plentiful. Even if it were plentiful, what would incentivize the people to do their very best to earn their money if they could get that salary anywhere, or they could take a much less demanding job elsewhere.
      What would your retirement plan look like? How would any of this make you better off? How would American corporations compete with others in the world?

      This kind of rationale stinks and smacks of pure jealousy. It sounds like “Its not fair that they are doing better than me. Even if it hurts me, I don’t want them to do well.”

    2. As a further follow up, ultimately, we are discussing the merits and faults of capitalism vs. socialism. I don’t mean the dirty word ‘Socialism’, but the difference between free enterprise and state controlled enterprise. Consider all the jobs we consider valuable. Teachers, for example, are paid poorly (some way too much) compared to their potential value to society. Military personnel are paid poorly (again, some way too much) compared to their potential value to society. The thread here is “If you are paid by the government (federal, state, local, etc.), your contribution to society is quite possibly not commensurate with your pay. You might be the best or you might be the worst, but it doesn’t matter because it is government controlled. It is only a truly non-economic decision, thank God, that some of the best people in the country stay in these and other professions.

      1. Managing an economy is a quandary. It isn’t a binary choice between socialism (state ownership of the means of production) and completely unregulated free markets. Every real country has a mixed economy that lets markets do what the decision makers (voters or The Leader) think they do best and lets government regulations do what they do best.

        As a fiscal conservative, I would err towards letting private enterprise and free markets make most of the decisions about the distribution of societal resources. However, history tells us that economic free markets without any regulation tend to develop monopolies like the oil, steel, and railway trusts Teddy Roosevelt busted over a century ago, or like the AT&T monopoly broken up in 1984.

        The worst of both worlds is to adopt government policies that make the concentration of wealth and power in fewer hands even easier than in a free market. It is my belief (and it is an opinion, not a fact, since I can’t predict the future) that the Trump Tax Bill is exactly that sort of worst-case government intervention.

        The benefits are not broadly based, but focus on the very top of the economic scale. Most Americans do not participate in the stock market. Only about 40% of adults have a 401k or defined private pension plan. Surprisingly few have enough savings to get them past a few missed paychecks.

        These individuals do not directly benefit when tax cuts have the principal benefit of making corporations more valuable. They rely on having a regular paycheck that increases at a rate faster than inflation. They look for tax policies that will help them achieve that. This bill does not do that because it does not incentivize investment.

        An Aside:

        As a retired public employee, I’m glad to see somebody who understands that most public servants stay in those positions because they feel a calling to public service, and not because they can make more money—or even as much—as they could in private industry. People do not become policemen, firemen, teachers, or soldiers to get rich… or to avoid being belittled as fools because they aren’t out for Number One. Their social value greatly exceeds their financial net worth.

        You also understand that government employees have the same secondary impacts on the economy as private industry. They buy housing, health care, food, and so forth at the same rate as corporate employees. There isn’t some magic economic benefit from shifting money away from government employees to corporate employees.

        The same is true of other government vs. corporate expenditures. When the government pays for concrete and steel to build a building, that benefits the economy exactly as if a private company were doing it. There may actually be less administrative overhead in government because there is no profit and lower personnel costs.

        Yes, private enterprise can do far more than government in many cases… but not in all cases.

        1. Dr. If strikes again in yet another monotonous, droning screed of “if, but, could, maybe and feelies.”

          Moral of story: NEVER take economics advice from a retired, public employee whose career has been one long public trough tit-suck. They are inherently part of the problem, not the solution.

          They create nothing.

          1. Please cc: us a copy of your letter to the “tit-sucking” prosecutors, police, firemen, paramedics, and garbage collectors in your community telling them that they are “inherently part of the problem” and that you will henceforth refuse their services if offered.

            I would also like to see a copy of your letter reporting this (and your street address) to the local newspaper so that all the local burglars, arsonists and litterbugs in your community will know where they can act out without consequences.

            After a year or so of living under that regime, write back and tell us again that government employees “create nothing.”

            Merry Christmas!

            1. …don’t attempt to deflect by conflating your marxist sophistry with honorable men who do their duty, you piece of shít. The jig is up.

              Merry Christmas!

            2. “The Lord God is One God, and thou shalt love the Lord your God with all your heart and mind and strength. Thou shalt not worship any created thing, nor bow down to it nor worship it.”

              As Paul Tillich pointed out, any man’s god is that which he regards as his matter of ultimate concern. It is that in which he puts all his faith and confidence. It is the single firm pivot on which his universe turns. It is the sole criterion of truth. For example, it is how he distinguishes between “honorable men who do their duty” and “a piece of shit.”

              You have wished me a Merry Christmas. Thank you.

              Have a Merry Trumpmas!

            3. “Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.”

              – Jesus of Nazareth

            4. PS: Tillich was a socialist fraud…similar to you.

              “The Fellowship of Socialist Christians was organized in the early 1930s by Reinhold Niebuhr and others with similar views. Later it changed its name to Frontier Fellowship and then to Christian Action. The main supporters of the Fellowship in the early days included Tillich, Eduard Heimann, Sherwood Eddy and Rose Terlin. In its early days the group thought capitalist individualism was incompatible with Christian ethics. Although not Communist, the group acknowledged Karl Marx’s social philosophy.”

        2. “The worst of both worlds is to adopt government policies that make the concentration of wealth and power in fewer hands even easier than in a free market. It is my belief (and it is an opinion, not a fact, since I can’t predict the future) that the Trump Tax Bill is exactly that sort of worst-case government intervention.”

          I am ok with your argument until your third paragraph because the first two paragraphs apply to a perfect world. I was commenting strictly on corporations, and you broadened the subject. I will disagree with you on the tax plan, especially as it pertains to corporations. In fact, if it could be done fairly (it can’t) I would rather see no taxes to corporations. I would rather that all the profits be passed on to the stock holder to be taxed at the same rate as any other income. Currently it is taxed twice. It can’t happen because a thriving business would not be able to reinvest, etc. Also, this is more government ‘cut back’ rather than ‘intervention’.

          “The benefits are not broadly based, but focus on the very top of the economic scale. Most Americans do not participate in the stock market. Only about 40% of adults have a 401k or defined private pension plan. Surprisingly few have enough savings to get them past a few missed paychecks.”

          I can not comment on your 40% number, but if true, it also cuts across the economic scale at least up to the middle class, who should know better. If you think that someone who makes $40K, $50K or $60K a year getting $1K net back each year (4% more in the pocket) isn’t helped, you have been making too much money too long to remember what 4% net means. We could argue about whether that should be higher and the rate to the rich should be higher, but the point I am trying to make is that it will boost well being for those people a considerably.

          “These individuals do not directly benefit when tax cuts have the principal benefit of making corporations more valuable. They rely on having a regular paycheck that increases at a rate faster than inflation. They look for tax policies that will help them achieve that. This bill does not do that because it does not incentivize investment.”

          Your choice of the phrase ‘more valuable’ should be ‘more competitive’. Your comment that this bill does not incentivize investment is unfounded. Most companies want to grow. To do that, they have to invest, period. And you are disregarding that it will create more jobs. More jobs create still more jobs.

          An Aside:

          “People do not become policemen, firemen, teachers, or soldiers to get rich… or to avoid being belittled as fools because they aren’t out for Number One. Their social value greatly exceeds their financial net worth.”

          It is true that millions in government of people don’t seek wealth. Their reasons, though, are across the map. Altruism, Safety, security, etc.

          “There isn’t some magic economic benefit from shifting money away from government employees to corporate employees.”

          The point is not shifting money away from the government employees to corporate employees. The point is getting the economy growing so that if we must endure the current and unsustainable inefficiency of the government, then we have the money to pay for it.

          “The same is true of other government vs. corporate expenditures. When the government pays for concrete and steel to build a building, that benefits the economy exactly as if a private company were doing it. There may actually be less administrative overhead in government because there is no profit and lower personnel costs.”

          This paragraph has been proven wrong so many times that is is not even debate worthy. The government doesn’t build anything. They hire corporations and companies to build everything. They build so much red tape into every contract that companies only take the job if they can recover the bloated costs that they have to incur.

          Don’t take my disagreements as believing we shouldn’t have government. It is just too big and bloated with unpaid, unsustainable, well intentioned in most cases, voter-seeking programs.

    3. Peasants, pray that your overlords do well! Give onto the Fortune 500 royalty that which these 1%ers self select as their lion’s share, you must support economic feudalism because the billionaires tell you it is best! Surely a nation of the people, by the people, and for the people is an obsolete concept. Only by granting corporations and their executives privileges unimaginable to the common citizen will multinational corporations be able to distribute token trickle down to ye miserable vassals.

      And yet, deep in the forest, disgruntlement grows. It is plainly obvious the game is rigged. A revolt will continue to brew since this distraction does nothing to level the field of play. Only when personal income tax upon the citizen is equal or less than that granted by corrupt sheriffs to their favorite unelected corporate fiefdoms, only then will justice prevail.

  2. It amazes me how many people don’t realize that those that work in the government do necessary work. It seems to me people would want to have an impartial group, that is answerable to the public, through, their elected representative or some such mechanism to safe guard them against entities that only want to take from them something. money, land, mineral rights, right of ways, fresh air, clean water, etc.

    The founders of America I suspect did not want efficiency in government. They created three separate branches, equal in power, to behave as checks on one another. Even within those branches, they created even more inefficiencies, more than one person in two of those branches that would share power. On top of that, they allowed little versions of the big, united, federal system in each state in the union. More and more wasteful duplication of responsibilities. Here is what is truly crazy, truly, in the states, at town and city levels, there is even more to the same. You talk about wasteful. It also amazes me how many claim to love America and in the next breath condemn what is America, inefficiency at its best.

    It is funny how many people think a government should be run like a household. It verges on crazy talk, no it is crazy talk. … when I sit at the dinner table I figure out how much money I have and I stay within my budget… we never spend more then we have and government should be like that …
    That is an unAmerican household and we all know it. I say that in jest. Many American live in debt. Trump is a prime example. Many buy a house on credit, buy cars on credit, buy clothes on credit. Why not wait, save the money and pay cash. Interesting too is the thought 300 million people all want the same things, have the same priorities, the same drive, same problems. … it should be run like a business …
    That is funny as everything too. A business’s drive is to make money. Are you proposing the government make money? Certainly you know businesses have debt, they even look to acquire debt, even when they have more money then they can spend.

    It’s best a government reject being run as a business. That means in the case of America, the American people should reject that the government be run a business or as a household. Those ideas, run as a business or household, were marketing speak that tested well. Much like ‘War on the Rich’, or ‘War on Christmas’ something to make people look other there, when they should be looking right here. No doubt great marketing.

    1. I couldn’t disagree more, BOB.

      Government needs serious efficiency reform, eliminate the duplicate services and agencies. Run it like a business or a household budget NOT to make money, but wise, careful and deliberate action with funding, waste, debt and above all SOLVE THE PROBLEMS …

  3. @ BOB

    “It amazes me how many people don’t realize that those that work in the government do necessary work. ”

    I don’t know anyone, personally, who believes that government does necessary work. How much is necessary is what is in debate.

    “The founders of America I suspect did not want efficiency in government. They created three separate branches, equal in power, to behave as checks on one another.”

    This is not duplication of power. It is separation of power.

    Even within those branches, they created even more inefficiencies, more than one person in two of those branches that would share power. On top of that, they allowed little versions of the big, united, federal system in each state in the union. More and more wasteful duplication of responsibilities. Here is what is truly crazy, truly, in the states, at town and city levels, there is even more to the same.”

    This paragraph is way off base. There was no intended duplication here. Towns govern only those things that affect their town. States govern only things that affect more than one town and only affect their state. The federal government was founded to govern things that affect more than one state.

    The overreach of federal, state and local government is not the founding fathers fault.

    “It is funny how many people think a government should be run like a household. It verges on crazy talk, no it is crazy talk. … when I sit at the dinner table I figure out how much money I have and I stay within my budget… we never spend more then we have and government should be like that …
    That is an unAmerican household and we all know it. I say that in jest. Many American live in debt. Trump is a prime example. Many buy a house on credit, buy cars on credit, buy clothes on credit. Why not wait, save the money and pay cash. Interesting too is the thought 300 million people all want the same things, have the same priorities, the same drive, same problems. … it should be run like a business …”

    Nowhere has anyone said that a responsible family should not borrow money. However responsible families do not spend or borrow more than they can afford.

    “That is funny as everything too. A business’s drive is to make money. Are you proposing the government make money?”

    The government does make money in taxes. So, yes I would propose that the government ‘make money’ if they are going to spend money.

    “Certainly you know businesses have debt, they even look to acquire debt, even when they have more money then they can spend.”

    Acquiring debt is a well know and used business practice. It is a way to invest in the business in the hope that it wil turn into more profit. It is also a well known and used family practice. Responsible families will stay within their means, and might even make an economic decision that their income and the appreciation on their homes, for example, will result in better economic well being. However, no business or family will last long if they borrow and continue to borrow more than they can afford to pay back. Their are checks in place to prevent these people from hurting others, but their is no sure way to prevent them from hurting themselves.

    “It’s best a government reject being run as a business.”

    Couldn’t disagree more. We are approaching the point when the interest on our national debt is not even going to be payable, much less our debt principal, unless we either drastically cut down the government spending, or drastically increase the money being ‘made’ by the government or both. We can drastically increase the money being made by the government either by an astounding increase in the tax rates or by somehow getting our business engine hitting on all cylinders and then some. It has been proven that tax increases have a negative effect on getting the engine running. Less money for people to spend, less products sold by business, etc. If government refuses to quit increasing the spending with money we don’t have or expect to get, and don’t find a way to ‘make’ more money, the same fate will befall us as an irresponsible family.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.