Anthony Bourdain on not having debt • Hacker News Board

Re: Anthony Bourdain on not having debt

#161

Post by PretzelFisch » Thu, Mar 16, 2017, 1:55 PM UTC

taurath wrote: post #94

ianai wrote: post #47

There was a point where financing the government was a patriotic act. People would give other people War Bonds as presents. But now the patriotic thing is to trash talk which ever party is in the administration and wax poetic about governmental corruption. You can't have it both ways. You can't say no to financing your government and scorn corruption. Either you're okay paying for your government, you're okay with so…

The government needs better PR frankly, instead of allowing itself to be a punching bag all day. Nobody can even imagine how many things the government and your tax dollars provide.

But then you have people who would complain because they don't want to pay for x at all. Still many people would not read it and remain ignorant.

Re: Anthony Bourdain on not having debt

#162

Post by M_Grey » Thu, Mar 16, 2017, 1:57 PM UTC

vinhboy wrote: post #17

> Nobody likes paying high taxes, but I don’t mind. How refreshing. I agree with him. Paying my taxes is a point of pride for me. It's a repayment for all those years I was poor and the government paid for me to live and go to school.

I'd feel better about paying my taxes if they were well-spent, and not patently wasted on wars, cronyism, and the latest political whims. Some of that is to be expected, but the degree of waste in the US system is appalling and seemingly nearly total.

After all, if you take pride in fresh new road surfaces and good schools, you also have to take some responsibility for our foreign policy.

Re: Anthony Bourdain on not having debt

#163

Post by CPLX » Thu, Mar 16, 2017, 1:58 PM UTC

appleiigs wrote: post #45

Debt conversations always have these weird grandpa rules of thumb and words of wisdom, as you can see in the other comments. The proper use of debt is to match the debt with the asset. If you are buying a house, a 25-year mortgage matches the value of the house. If you are buying a car, a 5-year loan matches the value of the car. If you are buying a sandwich with a credit card, well... you should pay off your credit…

The general rule, really, is more like borrow only for appreciating assets (often real estate, financing a new business) and not for consumables or depreciating assets.

But both your idea and mine are still rules of thumb, notwithstanding how much you wish to elevate yours to a different status.

Re: Anthony Bourdain on not having debt

#164

Post by M_Grey » Thu, Mar 16, 2017, 1:59 PM UTC

edanm wrote: post #62

yequalsx wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe there are no examples of charity ever being able to provide the basic needs of all but a small percent of the poor of a nation. It was not charities that provided clean water. It was not charities that largely ended hunger or gave healthcare to the poor. It was not charities that educated the masses. Government is necessary. It can be done badly but it doesn't have to be.

You might be right but I'm not sure what you prevented is any kind of proof that charity couldn't provide those needs. It's just that in most cases, governments effectively have a monopoly on providing these kinds of services, making charity either redundant, or legally unable to provide said services.

"Could" is a weak argument. People could all get along and love each other, but they absolutely never will. In that sense, the "could" is really an illusion formed from an imperfect understanding of human nature as the function of a large group, over time.

Re: Anthony Bourdain on not having debt

#165

Post by huntermeyer » Thu, Mar 16, 2017, 2:02 PM UTC

libertymcateer wrote: post #159

refurb wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if you're living in the US, but I do and I have the exact opposite viewpoint. The amount of waste, corruption and poor planning by the gov't makes me feel like I'm throwing money away. I'd rather give it a charity since then I'd know a majority of it had an impact. I think if the gov't was a bit more efficient and could be shown to be good stewards of money I'd probably hate paying taxes a lot less.

> The amount of waste, corruption and poor planning by the gov't [Citation needed.]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/23/politics/us-army-audit-account...

Re: Anthony Bourdain on not having debt

#166

Post by jazzyk » Thu, Mar 16, 2017, 2:04 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #143

patrickaljord wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your tax dollar don't pay for $y, $z or $w. You pay for the national debt mostly at this point. The government overspends and gets its money either from debt or from over printing. Even if top 10 of fortune 500 paid 100% taxes, it would still not cover spending. Just saying.

Interest on the national debt is a small portion of the US budget: https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-bud... Even if you just look at discretionary spending, debt payments are not a large portion of spending. New borrowing is also larger than the interest payments.

There is something off with the charts on the site you refer to (they don't provide the actual numbers in the charts).

Simple calculation:

With $20T of debt, at 3% interest rate (30Y bond), the interest on the debt is adding 600 billion dollars to the deficit per year (and it compounds).

600 billion with respect to the 3.8 billion federal budget is almost 16%.

And the interest rate is so low only because debt rates have been artificially suppressed by central banks using financial tricks such QE, the Fed buying its own's governments' debt, etc.

With interest rates bound to rise sooner or later, we are sitting on a financial time bomb.

Re: Anthony Bourdain on not having debt

#167

Post by tonyedgecombe » Thu, Mar 16, 2017, 2:06 PM UTC

Mikeb85 wrote: post #65

If your return on capital is higher than the interest rate, you should take on debt. If it's not (and for most it's not), then you shouldn't. Pretty simple. Anyhow, the article is an interesting anecdote about Bourdains life, but has little to do with money. He makes money from TV and books, can live comfortably because he makes quite a bit, but he's no financial savant.

The return on capital includes a risk factor, there is no risk that you won't have to repay the debt (other than death or bankruptcy).

Re: Anthony Bourdain on not having debt

#168

Post by tonyedgecombe » Thu, Mar 16, 2017, 2:07 PM UTC

Theodores wrote: post #124

> I didn’t put anything aside, ever. Money came in, money went out. I was always a paycheck behind, at least. I usually owed my chef my paycheck: again, cocaine. Like I said, until I was 44, I never even had a savings account. Anyone who has ever spent any of their money on class 'A' drugs is not in any position to dispense any type of wise financial advice.

Converts love to proselytize.

Re: Anthony Bourdain on not having debt

#169

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Mar 16, 2017, 2:08 PM UTC

_vn5r wrote: post #31

coconut_crab wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in one of the most corrupted countries in the world. Yet our newborn immunisation rate is nearly 100%, with free healthcare and education for the people in poorer rural area and ethnics minorities. And my tax money contributed to that. I guess it's fine to hate your government, but a better solution is to change it than avoid paying tax. Because if people pay less tax then then the poor and vulnerable will be…

What country is that?

[deleted]

Re: Anthony Bourdain on not having debt

#170

Post by Broken_Hippo » Thu, Mar 16, 2017, 2:08 PM UTC

ryanhuff wrote: post #63

mi_noi_noi wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could say charities are better in the sense that: - You at least have more than one choice. If the charity you give to performs poorly by whatever metrics you value, you can give to another one next time. - It is voluntary. Nobody with guns will put you in a cage if you don't donate to a charity, as is the case if you don't pay your taxes.

Couldn't you say that about whatever city that you live in? Many people voluntarily live in their choice of city or state (in the U.S.). If you don't like that government's priorities, you could move elsewhere.

Well, you know, unless you are too poor to afford the move.