Reduction in Regulations Save $1.3 Billion in Business Expenses This Year (wages, insurance)
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.
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.
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!
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.
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
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 ?
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...
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
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.
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.