Is the gross amount of US debt dangerous for the small investor?
"Not a lot, directly. Your biggest direct risk is that you could buy the debt, and buy it at too high a price (i.e. too low an interest rate) and not make as much money as you ought (and maybe not enough to cover inflation, especially if you buy long-term bonds at low interest rates.) The indirect risks are mostly that the debt could weigh on economic growth: There is also a question of monetary policy, inflation, and interest rates set by the Federal Reserve. Theoretically the government could be tempted to keep interest rates low (to save money) and buy its own bonds (""printing money""), which could cause inflation. Theoretically, they shouldn't, as price stability is one of the Fed's primary mandates. But if they did, inflation makes everything less predictable and is generally obnoxious, which makes everything more risky and drags on the economy. Also, if the nominal value of an asset rises due to inflation, you will likely need to pay taxes on that at some point if you sell it, even though its real value is the same."
"None of the previous answers (which are all good) mention margin accounts (loans from your broker).  You may also have heard them described as ""leverage"".  It may seem odd to mention this rather narrow form of debt here, but it's important because overuse of leverage has played a large part in pretty much every financial crisis you can think of (including the most recent one).  As the Investopedia definitions indicate, leverage magnifies gains, but also magnifies losses. I consider margin/leverage to be ""bad"" debt." "First off, with startups, forget that you know about common structures of debt and equity. Just try to think of this money as a generic ""investment"" that meets the investors risk and return objectives.  Startups are unique in that they are high risk but generally have almost no assets or security for an investor. Investors generically want two things: 1) Return and 2) Limited Risk.   Without speculating too much: consider that the investor might be viewing the return component as the 30% equity and the 8% dividend and he views the risk management component as the additional 30% equity, until repaid.  A different way of looking at this might be that the investor would require an equity stake greater than 30% with greater than a 8% dividend if he did not get the initial investment back in return for the reduced stake.  In other words, this structure is debt and equity because that is what the investor can demand.  Maybe you can get around this by offering a higher equity stake or offering something else although this structure is common because it aligns interests of the investor and the startup." "Long answer: [Interest Rates and Fiscal Sustainability](http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722986)  Short(er) answer: The issuer of the currency isn't revenue-constrained in its own currency. So the ""debt situation"" isn't bad at all, it's just a record of net issuance. On interest payments, two considerations. First is that when the interest rate is less than the growth rate, debt:GDP levels off. Second is that the interest rate is a price set by the issuer. So interest payments aren't a problem either.  Does that mean the government can just spend without limit or consequence? No. A thousand times, no. What it does mean though is that those limits and consequences are properly described in terms of what the economy needs and not in terms of budget constraints. Or to put it another way, they're balancing an economy, not a budget." "From a purely financial standpoint (psychology aside) the choice between paying off debt and investing on risky investments boils down to a comparison of risk and reward.  Yes, on average the stock market has risen an average of 10% (give or take) per year, but the yearly returns on the S&P 500 have ranged from a high of 37.6% in 1995 to a low of -37% in 2008.  So there's a good chance that your investment in index funds will get a better return than the guaranteed return of paying off the loan, but it's not certain, and you might end up much worse.  You could even calculate a rough probability of coming out better with some reasonable assumptions (e.g. if you assume that returns are normally distributed, which historically they're not), but your chances are probably around 30% that you'll end up worse off in one year (your odds are better the longer your investment horizon is).  If you can tolerate (meaning you have both the desire and the ability to take) that risk, then you might come out ahead.   The non-financial factors, however - the psychology of debt, the drain on discretionary cash flow, etc. cannot be dismissed as ""irrational"".  Paying off debt feels good.  Yes, finance purists disagree with Dave Ramsey and his approaches, but you cannot deny the problems that debt causes millions of households (both consumer debt and student loan debt as well).  If that makes them mindless ""minions"" because they follow a plan that worked for them then so be it. (disclosure - I am a listener and a fan but don't agree 100% with him)" "&gt;  Firstly, comparing debt to GDP is comparing a stock to a flow, you're committing a transgression that is warned about in Econ 101.  Perhaps you should learn a bit more.  He's talking bonds not stocks ... and even with stocks you've got a dividend discount model for establishing fair value (sum of discounted dividend flows = fair value of the company), etc..  With regard to the size of debt, you need to consider 3 things:  current interest expense (as a % of both GDP and Income (taxe revenue)), refinance cost ( change in interest expense if total debt is refinanced at current rates), and the first derivative of interest expense w.r.t. current yields.  This helps one understand the probability of a ""death spiral"" such as what was experienced in Greece (et. al.) where it was *impossible* to make debt payments at refinance rates.  The fact is that with US interest expenses on the debt of  $450B/year this is 13.5% of all government revenue.  If you factor in the interest expenses with even slightly higher yields ... one sees that you can quickly get a debt crisis.  If Trump gives as large a tax cut as he has promised, it has a much higher prospect of a debt death spiral.  Do the math." First of all, Mezz lending is, in my opinion, the riskiest piece of the capital stack. It has all the drawbacks of debt with none of the benefits of equity. You can be rest assured, when shit goes south, the market goes  through the mezz about as fast as you can blink. They are the most marginal piece of the capital stack and only seem to appear in red hot markets (which, is to say, late stage markets).  Also, this article defines terms and talks about economic macro metrics like that somehow informs the reader that the Chinese Real estate market is a good investment. Yes, GDP growth informs rent growth and overall demand but that like saying GDP growth increases corporate earning. No duh. That doesn't tell me if the the cap rate already prices in that growth or what if the pipeline of development is overbuilt.   Not to mention, investing in another market, in the most speculative risk curve of an alternative asset with no liquidity or legal recourse. Yeah, no.   edit: and current exchange risk. &gt;This buildup of excessive debt started so long ago -- Levy dates it to the 1980s in the U.S. -- that people no longer know what's prudent.  This is echoed elsewhere.  At this time, people that use capital don't truly know how much it's worth because it's so abundant.  Consequently, creates difficult in making business decisions. The catch is that you're doing a form of leveraged investing. In other words, you're gambling on the stock market using money that you've borrowed. While it's not as dangerous as say, getting money from a loan shark to play blackjack in Vegas, there is always the chance that markets can collapse and your investment's value will drop rapidly. The amount of risk really depends on what specific investments you choose and how diversified they are - if you buy only Canadian stocks then you're at risk of losing a lot if something happened to our economy. But if your Canadian equities only amount to 3.6% of your total (which is Canada's share of the world market), and you're holding stocks in many different countries then the diversification will reduce your overall risk.  The reason I mention that is because many people using the Smith Maneuver are only buying Canadian high-yield dividend stocks, so that they can use the dividends to accelerate the Smith Maneuver process (use the dividends to pay down the mortgage, then borrow more and invest it). They prefer Canadian equities because of preferential tax treatment of the dividend income (in non-registered accounts). But if something happened to those Canadian companies, they stand to lose much of the investment value and suddenly they have the extra debt (the amount borrowed from a HELOC, or from a re-advanceable mortgage) without enough value in the investments to offset it. This could mean that they will not be able to pay off the mortgage by the time they retire! "Starting with small amount of money is definitely a good idea, as it is a fact that majority of the online traders lose their initial investment. No wonder that for example in the UK, FCA decided to make steps to raise the chances of clients staying in business by limiting leverage to 1:50 and 1:25. http://www.financemagnates.com/forex/bloggers/new-fca-regulations-going-affect-retail-brokers/ Trading leveraged products is risky and you will lose some, or all your money with very high chance. But that doesn't mean necessarily it is a ""bad investment"" to trade on your own. Imagine you have a $1000 account, and you trade max 0,1 lot fx position at once maximum (=$10.000 position size, that is 1:10 leverage max). Beginner steps are very challenging and exiting, but turning back to your initial question: is there a better way to invest with a small amount of money Obviously you could purchase a cheap ETF that follows a broad market index or an already existing successful portfolio." To add to this, that risk is really only a problem if you don't have the cash flow to service the debt. If the surplus dips but your ultimately profitable on whatever trade you made, you're okay. If you default, you're not okay.  Volitility relative to loan term effectively. Your logic is not wrong.  But the risk is more significant than you seem to assume.  Essentially you are proposing taking a 2.6% loan to buy stocks. Is that a good strategy?  On average, probably.  But if your stocks crash you might have significant liabilities. In 1929, the Dow Jones dropped 89%.  In 1989, >30%.  In 2008-9, 54%.  This is a huge risk if this is money that you owe in taxes.  If you operate the same system year after year the chance of it going horribly wrong increases. "When I look at debt I try to think of myself as a corporation.  In life, you have a series of projects that you can undertake which may yield a positive net present value (for simplicity, let's define positive net present value as a project that yields more benefit than its cost). Let's say that one of the projects that you have is to build a factory to make clothing.  The factory will cost 1 million dollars and will generate revenue of 1.5 million dollars over the next year, afterwhich it wears out. Although you have the knowledge to build this wonderful factory, you don't have a million bucks laying around, so instead, you go borrow it from the bank.  The bank charges you 10% interest on the loan, which means that at the end of the year, the project has yielded a return of 400k. This is an extremely simplified example of what you call ""good"" debt.  It is good if you are taking the debt and purchasing something with a positive value. In reality, this should be how people should approach all purchases, even if they are with cash.  Everything that you buy is an investment in yourself - even entertainment and luxury items all could be seen as an investment in your happiness and relaxation.  If more people approached their finances in this way, people would have much more money to spend, William" "How many of these loans have been rehypothecated and/or chained to synthetic derivatives? That was the ""force multiplier"" in 07-08. Agreed that the impact will be a lot less since it is a much smaller market, but it might be bigger than many assume if these factors are present.  (And if it is bigger you get the risk of a chain reaction beyond that, though I think the Fed &amp; Co. are much more on-guard about that now.)" "The term ""stock"" here refers to a static number as contrasted to flows, e.g. population vs. population growth. Stock, in this context, is not at all related to an equity instrument.  Yes, annual refinance costs, interest rate payments etc. are what we should be looking at when assessing debt burden. Those are flows. That was my point when cautioning against naive debt GDP comparisons.  Also, keep in mind that by borrowing in it's sovereign currency, the US has an enormous amount of monetary tools to handle the debt if it ever became a problem. Greece, by comparison, is at the mercy of the ECB, so they only have fiscal levers to pull. The interest expense does not strike me as especially concerning, but I'd be happy to verify BIS or IMF reports if you would like." "Money is a token that you can trade to other people for favors. Debt is a tool that allows you to ask for favors earlier than you might otherwise. What you have currently is: If the very worst were to happen, such as: You would owe $23,000 favors, and your ""salary"" wouldn't make a difference. What is a responsible amount to put toward a car? This is a tricky question to answer. Statistically speaking the very worst isn't worth your consideration. Only the ""very bad"", or ""kinda annoying"" circumstances are worth worrying about. The things that have a >5% chance of actually happening to you. Some of the ""very bad"" things that could happen (10k+ favors): Some of the ""kinda annoying"" things that could happen (~5k favors): So now that these issues are identified, we can settle on a time frame. This is very important. Your $30,000 in favors owed are not due in the next year. If your student loans have a typical 10-year payoff, then your risk management strategy only requires that you keep $3,000 in favors (approx) because that's how many are due in the next year. Except you have more than student loans for favors owed to others. You have rent. You eat food. You need to socialize. You need to meet your various needs. Each of these things will cost a certain number of favors in the next year. Add all of them up. Pretending that this data was correct (it obviously isn't) you'd owe $27,500 in favors if you made no money. Up until this point, I've been treating the data as though there's no income. So how does your income work with all of this? Simple, until you've saved 6-12 months of your expenses (not salary) in an FDIC or NCUSIF insured savings account, you have no free income. If you don't have savings to save yourself when bad things happen, you will start having more stress (what if something breaks? how will I survive till my next paycheck? etc.). Stress reduces your life expectancy. If you have no free income, and you need to buy a car, you need to buy the cheapest car that will meet your most basic needs. Consider carpooling. Consider walking or biking or public transit. You listed your salary at ""$95k"", but that isn't really $95k. It's more like $63k after taxes have been taken out. If you only needed to save ~$35k in favors, and the previous data was accurate (it isn't, do your own math): Per month you owe $2,875 in favors (34,500 / 12) Per month you gain $5,250 in favors (63,000 / 12) You have $7,000 in initial capital--I mean--favors You net $2,375 each month (5,250 - 2,875)   To get $34,500 in favors will take you 12 months ( ⌈(34,500 - 7,000) / 2,375⌉ ) After 12 months you will have $2,375 in free income each month. You no longer need to save all of it (Although you may still need to save some of it. Be sure recalculate your expenses regularly to reevaluate if you need additional savings). What you do with your free income is up to you. You've got a safety net in saved earnings to get you through rough times, so if you want to buy a $100,000 sports car, all you have to do is account for it in your savings and expenses in all further calculations as you pay it off. To come up with a reasonable number, decide on how much you want to spend per month on a car. $500 is a nice round number that's less than $2,375. How many years do you want to save for the car? OR How many years do you want to pay off a car loan? 4 is a nice even number. $500 * 12 * 4 = $24,000 Now reduce that number 10% for taxes and fees $24,000 * 0.9 = $21,600 If you're getting a loan, deduct the cost of interest (using 5% as a ballpark here) $21,600 * 0.95 = $20,520 So according to my napkin math you can afford a car that costs ~$20k if you're willing to save/owe $500/month, but only after you've saved enough to be financially secure."