Members banned from this thread: splansing


Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 106
Thanks Tree79Thanks

Thread: Too Much Regulation

  1. #51
    Veteran Member Isalexi's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    33,324
    Thanks
    20747

    From
    Maryland
    Quote Originally Posted by Panzareta View Post
    Too bad that the business community has to be regulated but they just can't be trusted to do the right thing without coercion. That damned profit motive apparently interferes with their ability to be ethical.
    I find it so annoying that restaurants have to be regulated. If they want to serve horse meat, that should be their right. Why should they have inspections? Don't we trust the restaurant owner (sarcasm alert)
    Thanks from Panzareta

  2. #52
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    14,049
    Thanks
    3766

    From
    AK
    Quote Originally Posted by Panzareta View Post
    How have public pensions been a failure?
    In every way. They're a moral and ethical failure in that taxpayers decades ago enjoyed steeply discounted public services by promising them someone else would pay them more later. It's immoral and unethical to even make that sort of promise, or accept that sort of promise. That sort of promise should have been illegal then and should always be illegal. There should be no such thing as defined benefits. They're also a financial failure in that they're disastrously poorly funded, yet benefits remain the same as if they were wonderfully funded, but this requires making people (who are by and large non-pensioners) pay even more to satisfy the immoral promise made years or even decades before they could even vote.

    You do know that most pensions consist of money that were earned but instead of being paid to the employee went into the pension fund instead.
    Money saved for retirement is usually invested in pursuit of returns. If the returns are less than hoped, you shouldn't be able to just take it from someone else and say "sorry kids, I promised myself this."

    But like I said too bad the profit motive
    It was stupid enough the first time you said "the profit motive" in association with pensions. Now you've squared the stupidity.

  3. #53
    Member
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    3,416
    Thanks
    981

    From
    TN
    Quote Originally Posted by Panzareta View Post
    How have public pensions been a failure? You do know that most pensions consist of money that were earned but instead of being paid to the employee went into the pension fund instead. But like I said too bad the profit motive creates such unethical behavior in the business community that they have to be forced to do the right thing.
    My wife is a fed. 20 and out. That's just ridiculous in and of itself. They will, statistically, wind up paying her more NOT working for them, then she did working for them. On the other end of this I'm paying 56% of income, at all levels, local, state, federal and they're clamoring for more and more, 6% local taxes in part to pay for the cops not working for us anymore who actually outnumber the cops who do. The state wanted $.23 more for gas to pay for roads and those projects juice OT pay for cops who just sit there and collect OT which then juices their retirement (Some Port Authority cops make $250k plus per year). [And I'm not Buffet, and I don't have a mansion]

    So when it starts exceeding half because, in part, one needs to fund public pensions, expect resentment from those who don't get them. Who have foolish things to pay for....you know....like kids....and stupid things like their own retirement. Particularly when the system they force me to participate in says point blank that they won't have what they're promising: https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/...v70n3p111.html
    Last edited by publius3; 2nd January 2017 at 05:51 AM.

  4. #54
    Chubby Member
    Joined
    May 2006
    Posts
    8,223
    Thanks
    2329

    Government workers didn't BECOME more unionized than everyone else. They're just the only ones left. \

    Publius3, your point about people resenting pensioners is part of my point. It started with healthcare for state workers. The plans they negotiated in the 80's and 90's....their healthcare plans weren't sneeringly called "Cadillac" plans at that time, because that's what many people had. It was just called health benefits when they built those deals. But starting in the mid-90's, the healthcare industry has been squeezing and squeezing, without any market pressures to curtail their behavior. Every year employee costs go up by 10-25%, or their benefits get slashed so they end up paying more at the pump instead of in premiums. The insurance companies, drug companies, and hospitals tell us every year that things simply cost more, even as technology makes everything else dramatically cheaper.

    Did IBM and Merrill Lynch and Wal Mart flex their muscle and pressure the healthcare behemoth to stop raising rates on them? Of course not. They just passed the costs straight on to their employees in order to keep their bottom lines going up.

    Do people whose benefits have been bled for profit get pissed off at the way they're treated? Sort of. But then somebody tells them that there's a union over there where they still get "Cadillac" benefits...as if that is now some unheard of fucking luxury that nobody anywhere really deserves...the deadbeats. And now you're pissed off at the few remaining people whose unions have somehow survived, who have managed to demand what was simply part of a competitive compensation package 30 years ago, but is now just intolerable greed.

    To complete the bamboozling, the people who resent these unions and their "Cadillac" healthcare think it's TOTALLY FINE that Donald Trump says it makes him smart not to pay taxes. Only when people come together and create a unionized force in the market to negotiate their compensation, that's immoral. That's a handout. Hell, it's practically EXTORTION! But when Wal Mart brings the united power of its vast resources to bear on politicians to secure tax breaks, favorable regulations, etc, so that the owners can make just a couple more million this year....that's not a problem. That's just a natural market force.

    You're paying 56% to taxes? Wow, that's stupid. Warren Buffet paid 15% on his unimaginably huge profits. Capital gains, you know...because for some reason if you earn money by having money you should pay lower taxes on it. Hell, even Warren Buffet knows that's completely insane.

    You institute progressive taxes so that top tax rate starts to go north of 75% again (like it was in America's most powerful economic age), and your personal tax rate will go down, income inequality will be alleviated, and the economy can keep moving.

    What you're saying is that the problem is that we haven't squeezed ENOUGH of the middle class...that's why your taxes are so high. I couldn't disagree more.
    Last edited by splansing; 3rd January 2017 at 12:45 PM.

  5. #55
    Established Member
    Joined
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    7,637
    Thanks
    1315

    From
    Banned
    Quote Originally Posted by Isalexi View Post
    I find it so annoying that restaurants have to be regulated. If they want to serve horse meat, that should be their right. Why should they have inspections? Don't we trust the restaurant owner (sarcasm alert)
    It's not illegal to serve horse meat.

    There should be much more horse on menus across the country and more horse slaughter houses, we have a serious oversupply problem.

  6. #56
    Mad Genius For Hire Puzzling Evidence's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    15,793
    Thanks
    6500

    From
    ===hiding in th3 rafters===
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLeRoy View Post
    I would think maybe an HOUR of training would be enough to handle that safety risk.
    ???

    I'm glad you think so.

  7. #57
    Veteran Member carpe diem's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    26,814
    Thanks
    2459

    From
    San Diego, CA
    Quote Originally Posted by April15 View Post
    I'll tell ya as a person who has had several business's regulation's did not hurt me or business one bit. None of my competitors that I talked with felt so either.
    BS - What a load.

  8. #58
    Veteran Member carpe diem's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    26,814
    Thanks
    2459

    From
    San Diego, CA
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    There are, however, people who do believe there is "too much regulation," but none of them can articulate how to determine the appropriate number of regulations, or how they should be apportioned.
    That debate tactic response is similar to saying...gee if 100,000 people were really affected...name them all and their addresses.

    Each and every industry has regulations specific only to their field and many cross over regulations and at several levels of gov.
    You could start with regulations that are based upon Faux global warming fears...

    The idiocy of our regulators deciding that the refrigeration / Air Conditioning industry had 6 years to invent a new replacement refrigerant for chorodifluromethane...all based on the 'legal' term MAY. The backwards liberal style here is thinking that government can mandate invention.

    The ramifications of this created much higher consumer costs, lower business profits and a lack luster performing replacement. So lack luster that the heat exchangers have to be much larger for the same capacity, motors and blowers have to run at higher speeds.

    The problem begins when well intended individuals without particular trade knowledge have the power to alter or regulate without understanding the trades particular dynamics.
    Last edited by carpe diem; 4th January 2017 at 06:32 AM.

  9. #59
    Veteran Member Kontrary's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    13,923
    Thanks
    12533

    From
    Sweden
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLeRoy View Post
    There ARE too many regulations, but most of the silly regulations are at the STATE level, not the federal level. For example, the increasingly idiotic occupational licensing schemes in so many states. It takes more hours of study to become a cosmetologist in the state of California than it does to become a cop.

    Cosmetology, by the way, should NOT be confused with cosmology.

    It DOES take many years of intense university study to become an accomplished cosmologist.

    A cosmetologist, not so much. I have NO idea why a cosmetologist should even NEED a license. Let the market handle that. If someone is a truly awful hair-dresser, after all, the word will get out pretty quickly, and they will get no more customers. Nor does it cause any great harm to society if someone gets a bad hair-do.
    The reason hair dressers need a license is because they deal with some hygiene issues as well as with chemicals that they are applying to a person, things that could cause harm if the person doesnt have proper education and training. The license doesnt mean they can give a good hair cut, it means they have completed the accredited program and are educated on those basics.

  10. #60
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    49,054
    Thanks
    23108

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by carpe diem View Post
    That debate tactic response is similar to saying...gee if 100,000 people were really affected...name them all and their addresses.
    No, it is not. How much regulation is "too much"? How do you determine that? What you are really saying is that it feels like "too much." Otherwise, there would be an articulable method by which to determine how much regulation is "just right."

    Quote Originally Posted by carpe diem View Post
    You could start with regulations that are based upon Faux global warming fears...
    That is a specific policy argument, not an articulation of how much regulation is "too much."
    Thanks from OldGaffer

Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. What advocates of regulation don't get...
    By Raoul_Duke in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 24th November 2013, 01:09 PM
  2. Name That Regulation!
    By arock0627 in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 16th October 2013, 12:30 PM
  3. Why we need MORE regulation of the mortgage lenders, not less..
    By Cicero in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2nd September 2011, 12:44 AM
  4. Not all EU regulation is bad
    By caffeine in forum World Politics
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 22nd July 2010, 05:38 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed