Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-19-2018, 01:02 PM
 
45,396 posts, read 26,983,057 times
Reputation: 23754

Advertisements

Nixing Regulations Saved Taxpayers $1.3 Billion This Year

President Trump’s decision to do away with a number of federal regulations has saved taxpayers $1.3 billion this year, according to the American Action Forum.

...
You might not like everything that President Trump says or does (I know I don’t), but you really have to agree that this is one area where he deserves credit. After all, extensive regulations are bad for the economy. When businesses have to worry about complying with too many rules, it makes it much harder for them to operate — and it makes it harder for entrepreneurs to open a new business from scratch. A more relaxed regulatory environment, on the other hand, makes it easier for existing business and makes it simpler for someone with an idea for a start-up to be able to make that idea a reality without having to worry about so much red tape. Having more businesses leads to there being more jobs available, which is obviously a positive thing for any economy. What’s more, since complying with regulations can be so costly, having fewer of them also gives businesses the opportunity to pay their workers higher wages than they would otherwise be able to pay.


It is estimated to cost around $1.9 trillion for business to comply with regulations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-19-2018, 01:04 PM
 
25,427 posts, read 9,747,465 times
Reputation: 15258
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC View Post
Nixing Regulations Saved Taxpayers $1.3 Billion This Year

President Trump’s decision to do away with a number of federal regulations has saved taxpayers $1.3 billion this year, according to the American Action Forum.

...
You might not like everything that President Trump says or does (I know I don’t), but you really have to agree that this is one area where he deserves credit. After all, extensive regulations are bad for the economy. When businesses have to worry about complying with too many rules, it makes it much harder for them to operate — and it makes it harder for entrepreneurs to open a new business from scratch. A more relaxed regulatory environment, on the other hand, makes it easier for existing business and makes it simpler for someone with an idea for a start-up to be able to make that idea a reality without having to worry about so much red tape. Having more businesses leads to there being more jobs available, which is obviously a positive thing for any economy. What’s more, since complying with regulations can be so costly, having fewer of them also gives businesses the opportunity to pay their workers higher wages than they would otherwise be able to pay.


It is estimated to cost around $1.9 trillion for business to comply with regulations.
Hopefully some of that money that's saved can help with the continued storm cleanups we will have since environmental regulations have been reduced. Only 3% of homeowners in NC had flood insurance. So much winning. SMDH. How people can still support this idiot is beyond me. But yay business!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2018, 01:05 PM
 
14,221 posts, read 6,934,521 times
Reputation: 6059
I always love how people are never specific about the "regulations" they are talking about. Its always just a broad based term with no specifics.

Yes, fewer labor rights, fewer consumer protections, more dirty water, fewer inspections of restaurants, hell even weakening regulations for sanctuary employers, its good for business to not comply with regulations. But is it good for the people if workers have less rights? We are told that China uses worker slaves, but these same people are fine with the worst labor rights in the developed world right here in America.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2018, 01:06 PM
 
463 posts, read 188,216 times
Reputation: 321
It's Trump's fault a homeowner didn't buy insurance? How does that factor in to the actuarial rating tables?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2018, 01:08 PM
 
25,427 posts, read 9,747,465 times
Reputation: 15258
Quote:
Originally Posted by JCHouseHunter View Post
It's Trump's fault a homeowner didn't buy insurance? How does that factor in to the actuarial rating tables?
You wouldn't understand if we explained it to you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2018, 01:14 PM
 
463 posts, read 188,216 times
Reputation: 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by trobesmom View Post
You wouldn't understand if we explained it to you.
Yea, concepts like frequency and severity and mortality rate and rate filings and combined ratios and DoI regulations and insurance jargon would go over the head of someone like myself who has never successfully written actuarial examinations and studied economics
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2018, 01:15 PM
 
34,301 posts, read 15,599,055 times
Reputation: 13053
Quote:
Originally Posted by trobesmom View Post
Hopefully some of that money that's saved can help with the continued storm cleanups we will have since environmental regulations have been reduced. Only 3% of homeowners in NC had flood insurance. So much winning. SMDH. How people can still support this idiot is beyond me. But yay business!
Why didn't someone force them to buy flood insurance ?
That seems to be the direction some want to go.
Call it affordable no matter what it cost.
It sure is raising the cost for the rest of us. Isn't that the argument ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2018, 01:22 PM
 
45,396 posts, read 26,983,057 times
Reputation: 23754
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCALMike View Post
I always love how people are never specific about the "regulations" they are talking about. Its always just a broad based term with no specifics.

Yes, fewer labor rights, fewer consumer protections, more dirty water, fewer inspections of restaurants, hell even weakening regulations for sanctuary employers, its good for business to not comply with regulations. But is it good for the people if workers have less rights? We are told that China uses worker slaves, but these same people are fine with the worst labor rights in the developed world right here in America.
Who's complaining about the recent reduction of regulations with regards to what you have mentioned? You can just give me some links...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2018, 01:25 PM
 
Location: PSL
8,224 posts, read 3,482,550 times
Reputation: 2963
Quote:
Originally Posted by trobesmom View Post
Hopefully some of that money that's saved can help with the continued storm cleanups we will have since environmental regulations have been reduced. Only 3% of homeowners in NC had flood insurance. So much winning. SMDH. How people can still support this idiot is beyond me. But yay business!
That money, that I saved in some regulations but mostly taxes? It pays my employees double what my competitors pay theirs. And I don't require a college degree and x years worth of experience

Absolutely Yay business.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2018, 01:42 PM
 
4,541 posts, read 2,769,358 times
Reputation: 4921
This is a poor analysis, but what can I expect from the Trump administration. I see two problems at first glance.

1. Failure to incorporate the cost of externalities. I'll give an example; Trump recently eliminated regulation of unlined coal ash ponds. In 2008 - one of those ponds burst in Tennessee and the cost was in the billions; this is now more likely. Moreover - look to Trumps attempt to weaken fuel economy standards. Sure - it's profitable for the automakers, but will cost billions when you account for health issues related to more C02 in the environment. This leads me to point 2.

2. There's nothing dynamic about this, it looks at the direct cost in one slice of time. For example, they need to model the effects of relaxed environmental regulations as it relates to human health. 10 years down the road, the revival of "clean coal" will cost us dearly - and it will be a lot more than $1.3 billion.

So many people getting duped by Trump and his cronies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:02 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top