politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
My first thought as well.
We all know he's not nearly as wealthy as he likes to pretend, but it'd be nearly impossible to live his lifestyle without at least 200,000 in available cash.
Likely he's using his so-called "genius" business brain to intentionally Welch on the debt and snag himself a cool 90% discount on his bail.
Why pay 200 when you can pay 20
You pay 20 in cash because you get 20 in cash back if you show up to court
If you take a loan with a bondsman, you lose a fee. 5 of the 20 is lost because you used a bondsman. Only get 15 back after you show up to court.
You don't want to use a bondsman unless you have to
Maybe he anticipates more than 10% inflation before his court date and is just making smart money moves?
I'm confused at what you mean
Inflation hurts the value of your current money
You always want more money
Giving away a fee would just mean he has less less worthless money
Best case scenario for him is he feels like keeping liquid capital is worth more than the fee and no one wanted to post bail for him.
$20k. Some people he knows just cracked a bottle of wine worth that. Yet none of them would post his bail.
That's more telling than him just using a bail bondsman.
So he "loses" $20k, which is the same he would lose with the bail bondsman. The difference is that since he anticipates a %10 inflation, he can invest those $200k to try to earn a 10% return to make up the loss. If the money were just sitting in the court's coffers, he couldn't invest it, so it'd deteriorate in value.
Makes sense in my head but its late so maybe it's nonesense lol. I was completely joking anyways, there's no way that's what he's doing.
The general idea is not nonsense, but it's unlikely he's making a 10% return. Although, maybe he has some high interest loans out there, and he's better off putting his money in those. That too would indicate a crappy financial position though.
Good macro econ point about the inflation factor.
Inflation cost stacks on top of lost opportunity investment cost.
He only has to come up with 10% of total bail
Let's say bondsman premium is 10%
So trump has to come up with 20k to give court
Bondsman wants a 2k fee to loan 20k and be on hook for 200k (This is probably low. Bondsman probably wants more fee and collateral)
So if trump keeps his 20k and puts it in a super special high yield savings account, it guarantees 10% return in the time between mugshot and court. (Unlikely)
He withdraws 22k from SSHYSA after appearing in court. He has to pay 2k (this is assuming he doesn't have to pay the fee upfront). He will have 20k.
If he paid the bail in cash, he would have 20k.
He has 20k in both scenarios. No matter inflation, he has 20k spending power in both scenarios
Bail bondsman has to lend out 20k. Anyone using a bondsman is over a barrel. Their fee will be high. They also know they have to combat inflation themselves. If it's better for them to put their money in the SSHYSA, then loan it out, they will.
It's possible for him to make money but unlikely with fee being really low and SSHYSA being really high.
Inflation doesn't really play a factor. Because investment into savings accounts doesn't combat inflation. (This is the whole purpose of the fed wanting inflation, to deter people from savings, because spending helps drive economy) He'd have to use his current high purchasing power to buy something that is worth 20k today (Speed Boat) but worth 22k tomorrow because of inflation.
Doesn't matter if the 20k is sitting in court's coffers or SSHYSA. It's affected by inflation the same.