Chairman Powell gives his first remarks as Fed Chairman tomorrow morning and then Ben Bernake interviews Janet Yellen at the Brookings Institute in the afternoon.

Hope the Yellen interview is aired somewhere. I liked to here her candidly talk about the unwinding of QE into the headwinds of major deficit spending.

and Yields just skyrocketed during Powell's remarks. He seems to want more inflation. I dont mind that but I'd like to wind down the balance sheet as much as possible before yields get too high.

(02-27-2018 12:24 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  and Yields just skyrocketed during Powell's remarks. He seems to want more inflation. I dont mind that but I'd like to wind down the balance sheet as much as possible before yields get too high.

Inflation leads to higher interest costs on debt. But on the other hand, also drives up wages and tax collections.

(02-27-2018 12:48 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 12:24 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  and Yields just skyrocketed during Powell's remarks. He seems to want more inflation. I dont mind that but I'd like to wind down the balance sheet as much as possible before yields get too high.

Inflation leads to higher interest costs on debt. But on the other hand, also drives up wages and tax collections.

What I am worried about is that as interest rates get higher you will eventually get to a point where the economy will slow down and, if the yield curve inverts, youll get a recession. I would like for the Fed to have every available resource to deal with the next inevitable recession that should come sometime in the next 18 months to 3 years.

(02-27-2018 02:02 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 12:48 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 12:24 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  and Yields just skyrocketed during Powell's remarks. He seems to want more inflation. I dont mind that but I'd like to wind down the balance sheet as much as possible before yields get too high.

Inflation leads to higher interest costs on debt. But on the other hand, also drives up wages and tax collections.

What I am worried about is that as interest rates get higher you will eventually get to a point where the economy will slow down and, if the yield curve inverts, youll get a recession. I would like for the Fed to have every available resource to deal with the next inevitable recession that should come sometime in the next 18 months to 3 years.

Right now with so many companies holding a lot of cash, we can afford interest rates to rise some.

I don't think we went far enough with corporate tax changes. Need to push the rates lower and make the rates flatter by cutting deductions. Looks like the code still favors those with vast capital to avail of many of the current deductions giving added competitive advantage to the larger companies that already have a big advantage thanks to easier access to capital and ability to leverage scale and generally have higher brand awareness as well.

Honestly I wouldve waited to lower corporate taxes until the economy needed stimulation due to recession etc.

(02-28-2018 10:49 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  Honestly I wouldve waited to lower corporate taxes until the economy needed stimulation due to recession etc.

When our corporate rates are 15-20% above world rates, and businesses are clearly moving operations overseas, the time may well be right now.

We cut the top corporate rate almost in half, and the impact is only something like 5% of total tax revenues? That's not a costly fix for a lingering problem.

(02-28-2018 11:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 10:49 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  Honestly I wouldve waited to lower corporate taxes until the economy needed stimulation due to recession etc.

When our corporate rates are 15-20% above world rates, and businesses are clearly moving operations overseas, the time may well be right now.

We cut the top corporate rate almost in half, and the impact is only something like 5% of total tax revenues? That's not a costly fix for a lingering problem.

Dont disagree in theory but increasing the deficit when already close to full employment and when you are trying to lower the Fed's balance sheet. That's a lot of debt flooding the market.

(02-28-2018 04:36 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 11:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 10:49 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  Honestly I wouldve waited to lower corporate taxes until the economy needed stimulation due to recession etc.

When our corporate rates are 15-20% above world rates, and businesses are clearly moving operations overseas, the time may well be right now.
We cut the top corporate rate almost in half, and the impact is only something like 5% of total tax revenues? That's not a costly fix for a lingering problem.

Dont disagree in theory but increasing the deficit when already close to full employment and when you are trying to lower the Fed's balance sheet. That's a lot of debt flooding the market.

My solution has always been what the rest of the developed world does--consumption tax. I see no other way out.

(02-28-2018 05:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 04:36 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 11:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 10:49 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  Honestly I wouldve waited to lower corporate taxes until the economy needed stimulation due to recession etc.

When our corporate rates are 15-20% above world rates, and businesses are clearly moving operations overseas, the time may well be right now.
We cut the top corporate rate almost in half, and the impact is only something like 5% of total tax revenues? That's not a costly fix for a lingering problem.

Dont disagree in theory but increasing the deficit when already close to full employment and when you are trying to lower the Fed's balance sheet. That's a lot of debt flooding the market.

My solution has always been what the rest of the developed world does--consumption tax. I see no other way out.

Dont disagree.

Powell was much more dovish today in front of the Senate. Several senators(Corker most notably) tried to tie him down to a 4th rate increase this year but he did a good job of deflecting.

(02-28-2018 05:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 04:36 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 11:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 10:49 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  Honestly I wouldve waited to lower corporate taxes until the economy needed stimulation due to recession etc.

When our corporate rates are 15-20% above world rates, and businesses are clearly moving operations overseas, the time may well be right now.
We cut the top corporate rate almost in half, and the impact is only something like 5% of total tax revenues? That's not a costly fix for a lingering problem.

Dont disagree in theory but increasing the deficit when already close to full employment and when you are trying to lower the Fed's balance sheet. That's a lot of debt flooding the market.

My solution has always been what the rest of the developed world does--consumption tax. I see no other way out.

Well we do it at the state level.

Exempt food and have at it. Can keep income tax but slash the rates and up the personal exemption and standard deduction even more.

(03-01-2018 05:53 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 05:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 04:36 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 11:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 10:49 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  Honestly I wouldve waited to lower corporate taxes until the economy needed stimulation due to recession etc.

When our corporate rates are 15-20% above world rates, and businesses are clearly moving operations overseas, the time may well be right now.
We cut the top corporate rate almost in half, and the impact is only something like 5% of total tax revenues? That's not a costly fix for a lingering problem.

Dont disagree in theory but increasing the deficit when already close to full employment and when you are trying to lower the Fed's balance sheet. That's a lot of debt flooding the market.

My solution has always been what the rest of the developed world does--consumption tax. I see no other way out.

Well we do it at the state level.

Exempt food and have at it. Can keep income tax but slash the rates and up the personal exemption and standard deduction even more.

Or provide a minimum basic income to cover basic food, clothing, and shelter needs, plus Bismarck to cover health care. Milton Friedman's negative income tax or the Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund will do nicely.

(03-01-2018 06:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 05:53 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 05:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 04:36 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 11:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  When our corporate rates are 15-20% above world rates, and businesses are clearly moving operations overseas, the time may well be right now.
We cut the top corporate rate almost in half, and the impact is only something like 5% of total tax revenues? That's not a costly fix for a lingering problem.

Dont disagree in theory but increasing the deficit when already close to full employment and when you are trying to lower the Fed's balance sheet. That's a lot of debt flooding the market.

My solution has always been what the rest of the developed world does--consumption tax. I see no other way out.

Well we do it at the state level.

Exempt food and have at it. Can keep income tax but slash the rates and up the personal exemption and standard deduction even more.

Or provide a minimum basic income to cover basic food, clothing, and shelter needs, plus Bismarck to cover health care. Milton Friedman's negative income tax or the Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund will do nicely.

Minimum Basic Income will be impossible to avoid as automation continues to take lower level jobs. At least during the generational transition to an automated economy.

(03-01-2018 06:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 05:53 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 05:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 04:36 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 11:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  When our corporate rates are 15-20% above world rates, and businesses are clearly moving operations overseas, the time may well be right now.
We cut the top corporate rate almost in half, and the impact is only something like 5% of total tax revenues? That's not a costly fix for a lingering problem.

Dont disagree in theory but increasing the deficit when already close to full employment and when you are trying to lower the Fed's balance sheet. That's a lot of debt flooding the market.

My solution has always been what the rest of the developed world does--consumption tax. I see no other way out.

Well we do it at the state level.

Exempt food and have at it. Can keep income tax but slash the rates and up the personal exemption and standard deduction even more.

Or provide a minimum basic income to cover basic food, clothing, and shelter needs, plus Bismarck to cover health care. Milton Friedman's negative income tax or the Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund will do nicely.

Nixon favored a form of negative income tax that included a penalty if the person failed to do any work and wasn't disabled. Got through the House I believe. Carter attempted it as well but wasn't as successful.

I think it is safe to assume that with a NIT or GBI that some people will say the heck with it and stop working, but on the flip side, it eliminates the need for a minimum wage and it provides a safety net for those wanting to start their own business.

As to a Bismark model of health care, it has been pretty universal among nations adopting it or plans modeled on it that medical professionals receive free medical education. By avoiding the expense of education they are able to accept smaller payments.

I think a regional approach makes better sense than a national approach. If I were a physician, my cost to open a clinic in NYC would be dramatically higher than my cost opening my clinic in Little Rock and Little Rock would be cheaper than Helena, Arkansas.

We also have a lot of inter-state movement of patients. If I am in a catastrophic car wreck in Searcy, Arkansas I will be flown to Little Rock. If I have that same wreck in Jonesboro, Ark I will be flown to Memphis, TN.

If an infant has a condition warranting being in a NICU, in Bentonville the child goes to Tulsa, in Marianna to Memphis, and in Batesville to Little Rock.

A series of regional insurers, most covering multiple states may make better sense than one national insurer.

Given my preference, I'd use something along the lines of the Singapore system where people are required to place a percentage of wages in a health savings account with a catastrophic health plan kicking in when costs hit a certain point, say 20% of the median income with a Medicaid style plan to pick up the slack for the lower income people.