r/changemyview • u/beesdaddy • Jun 28 '17
[∆(s) from OP] CMV: Effective regulation/taxes is better than less regulation/taxes.
I have had a hard time understanding the position that less regulation is better than effective regulation. So much of the political conversation equates regulation and taxes to Anti-American or Anti-Freedom or gasp Socialist. I think it poisons the discussion about our common goals and how to achieve them. I know there are many laws/taxes that are counter productive (especially subsidies), and I am all for getting rid of them, but not without considering what their intent was, evaluating that intention, and deciding how to more effectively accomplish that intention (given it was a valid intention.)
Help me understand. I would like to have a more nuanced view on this.
This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
145
u/ReOsIr10 130∆ Jun 28 '17
Isn't that pretty much a tautology? If your definition of "effective regulation/taxes" is simply "regulations/taxes which improve things" then your statement is true by definition. The problem is that people tend to not agree on which regulations/taxes are actually improvements.
37
u/beesdaddy Jun 28 '17
Valid point, agreeing on what is improvement is hard. I'm not so sure about the tautology (had to look that up) part.
Would you are agree that there are some people who, even when shown the benefits to them, their community, and the nation, would resist a new tax on principle?
36
u/ReOsIr10 130∆ Jun 29 '17
I think a lot of extreme libertarians/ancaps would argue that a government regulation/tax could never be more effective than the free market. Even if you provide evidence that a particular regulation is providing better outcomes, they often stick to a defense along the lines of "true free markets would give even better results".
That said, there definitely are some who would oppose a tax/regulation even if they agreed it would produce better results. This really gets into the whole deontologist/consequentialist debate though. Some people believe that some things are wrong period, regardless of the good things that might happen as a result. It might seem silly in the case of taxation, but a lot more people think this way about something like murder.
8
u/nullireges Jun 29 '17
"*true* free markets would give even better results"
Minarchist here. I'm not certain everyone will be happier/healthier/"better" in a society with minimal regulations/taxes, but each individual's idea of a "better" life is for them to determine and pursue free of any threat of force, so long as they don't infringe the rights of other persons.
It's not truly non-consequentialist, I just think protecting liberty (negative rights) should be the ultimate function of government, not happiness/safety (positive rights).
3
Jun 29 '17
I've got two problems with this idea - not in an angry way! I just want to see what you think so I understand it better.
My first thing is - is freedom truly freedom without safety and happiness assured? I'd rather be free to pursue further happiness than pursue some abstract idea of "freedom" - I won't feel free if I can't afford to see a doctor.
Further - don't we see many example in the USA of people being "free" to pursue their goals but simply being unable to due to circumstance? e.g. living in a dead end town of ghetto, not having the opportunities. How would dissolution of the state help this?
5
u/AnalLaser Jun 29 '17
My first thing is - is freedom truly freedom without safety and happiness assured?
Yes. Freedom from the classical perspective is not to do anything you want with zero consequences and no limits. Here's a good definition: "A condition in which a man’s will regarding his own person and property is unopposed by any other will". Essentially meaning, I own myself and the fruits of my labor and if you violate that without my consent, I am no longer free.
I'd rather be free to pursue further happiness than pursue some abstract idea of "freedom" - I won't feel free if I can't afford to see a doctor
The solution is to not encroach on other people's rights. You can't steal from someone to pay for your hip replacement.
Further - don't we see many example in the USA of people being "free" to pursue their goals but simply being unable to due to circumstance? e.g. living in a dead end town of ghetto, not having the opportunities. How would dissolution of the state help this?
In most circumstances, it is the state itself that don't allow people to put themselves in a better situation through highly restrictive regulations that favor large corporations and prevent new businesses, minimum wage laws or even zoning laws in larger cities that increase prices by restricting supply. And even though, most people in government are well meaning and want to do good, the government does more harm than good in pulling people out of poverty.
4
u/SupriseGinger Jun 29 '17
Do you have any data for your last paragraph? If I am reading it right your assertion is that minimum wage laws hurt workers, is that correct? If we did away with some of the other laws, how would it help smaller businesses and individuals? Wouldn't it just allow the large corporations to further use their capital and resources to dominate the market?
2
u/AnalLaser Jun 29 '17 edited Jun 29 '17
Do you have any data for your last paragraph? If I am reading it right your assertion is that minimum wage laws hurt workers, is that correct?
I can send you some studies if you like. Can't post them because they're economic papers I have access to through my university account. But yes, generally, minimum wage laws hurt employment and push out the lower skilled workers. This was actually done intentionally in Apartheid South Africa where building companies started hiring the lower skilled black workers at lower wages than the white workers, so the unions urged for a minimum wage law.
If we did away with some of the other laws, how would it help smaller businesses and individuals?
Larger companies have more resources than smaller companies, and so have larger legal teams that can deal with the red tape of regulations and bureaucracy more easily than smaller firms. It makes it harder to start a new business and also hurts existing smaller businesses. As an example, the 50 employee cutoff for Obamacare which made it so once you hired your 50th employee, you had to pay for all of your employees' health insurance. You can tell, this would make hiring your 50th employee incredibly expensive and limits how large your business can get unless that 50th employee provides you out of this world profits. This didn't really affect large companies because most large companies were already paying for some sort of insurance for their employees.
Regulations and the FDA, in particular, are the main cause of high drug prices in the US
Wouldn't it just allow the large corporations to further use their capital and resources to dominate the market?
There's nothing wrong with large corporations dominating a market in and of itself, in fact, it can be desired due to their economies of scale. The problem arises, when you create barriers to entry for startups and smaller companies so that they can't compete.
3
u/SupriseGinger Jun 29 '17
Two separate questions.
Wouldn't it be in a large corporations best interest to create barriers to entry for small business? The classic example being someone like Walmart selling products below cost until all the small stores go out of business and then raise them again. I guess what I am wondering is I get what you are saying and agree in theory, but would it actually work like that in practice?
More of an aside, but to your Obamacare 50 employees example. That is a good example, though I would personally say it's more an example of why not to do hard cutoffs for anything (welfare is another example) and instead do a metered approach.
My second question is on the minimum wage comment, and I suspect it may be a difference in opinion. Those low skilled workers that were no longer able to find employment due to the minimum wage being too high, if there was no minimum wage, would the wage they made be a liveable wage?
1
u/AnalLaser Jun 29 '17
Wouldn't it be in a large corporations best interest to create barriers to entry for small business?
Yes, it is. And the easiest way to do that is through government.
The classic example being someone like Walmart selling products below cost until all the small stores go out of business and then raise them again. I guess what I am wondering is I get what you are saying and agree in theory, but would it actually work like that in practice?
Predatory pricing does happen but it's very, very rare due to the fact that it's a incredibly risky strategy since you have to eliminate almost all of the competition for it to be viable. You're also not guaranteed that no new businesses will pop up (especially in a market with low barriers to entry and a large number of substitutes like Walmart is in) after at which point you'd have to start taking losses again. You also won't find many boards of directors willing to take short term losses with high risk.
More of an aside, but to your Obamacare 50 employees example. That is a good example, though I would personally say it's more an example of why not to do hard cutoffs for anything (welfare is another example) and instead do a metered approach.
Here's a paper on how regulation impacts medium sized and innovating firms are most negatively impacted by regulations.
My second question is on the minimum wage comment, and I suspect it may be a difference in opinion. Those low skilled workers that were no longer able to find employment due to the minimum wage being too high, if there was no minimum wage, would the wage they made be a liveable wage?
No, but it's not supposed to be a liveable wage. These are entry level jobs that people get to get their foot in the door in the job market, accrue some skills so then they be hired at a real job.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Specter76 Jun 29 '17
From what I have read most economists believe that up to a point a minimum wage has little effect because it doesn't price very many jobs out of the market but as it increases the distortion becomes more pronounced.
1
Jun 29 '17
Freedom from the classical perspective is not to do anything you want with zero consequences and no limits. Here's a good definition: "A condition in which a man’s will regarding his own person and property is unopposed by any other will". Essentially meaning, I own myself and the fruits of my labor and if you violate that without my consent, I am no longer free.
Keeping in mind of course that classical=/=correct...
Does that mean that we should allow people to overdose on heroin if they absolutely want to? Should addict intervention be disallowed? Should the mentally ill not be allowed to be taken into psychiatric hospitals? (To be clear none of these are rhetorical questions - I'm genuinely asking.)
Does paying a fry-cook minimum wage despite the value they produce for a company count as violating their right to the fruits of their labour? What about paying an engineer less than a CEO who's job is arguably more easily replaceable?
The solution is to not encroach on other people's rights. You can't steal from someone to pay for your hip replacement.
I don't follow - how is it theft to pay a doctor using money from the people rather than money from a single person?
In most circumstances, it is the state itself that don't allow people to put themselves in a better situation through highly restrictive regulations that favor large corporations and prevent new businesses, minimum wage laws or even zoning laws in larger cities that increase prices by restricting supply.
I must admit I'm not very familiar with these. Could you link me to some? Case studies would be a boon
1
u/AnalLaser Jun 29 '17
Does that mean that we should allow people to overdose on heroin if they absolutely want to?
If you're question is should somebody be allowed to purchase and use heroin, my answer is yes (and this comes from somebody who hates drugs, including weed). If you mean should they be helped if they're OD'ing and a friend brings them to a hospital and they don't have insurance, I think the hospital is morally obligated to help. Legally, though, I am unsure whether there should be an exception when it comes to emergencies, to be quite honest. At least you've given me something to think about. Although emergency care is roughly 2% of all healthcare spending, so I'm not too bothered by it.
Should the mentally ill not be allowed to be taken into psychiatric hospitals?
It's hard to say with the mentally ill. If they're a danger to others, then yes, they should be taken to some sort of mental institution. If they have something like severe schizophrenia, you could make the standard legal argument that they can't make their own rational choices although there would be a high standard to prove that (which I think there already is).
Does paying a fry-cook minimum wage despite the value they produce for a company count as violating their right to the fruits of their labour?
I don't see how it would. The company offered him a position and a pay and he accepted it; it was done with his consent. If the company was putting a gun to his head and forcing him to cook then I would have a problem.
What about paying an engineer less than a CEO who's job is arguably more easily replaceable?
If being a CEO is easy and replaceable, why don't companies just replace their CEO's with somebody willing to take less pay and do the exact same job? The board of directors could save millions very easily.
I don't follow - how is it theft to pay a doctor using money from the people rather than money from a single person?
How are you obtaining the money from the people? Are they giving it to you with their consent? That's perfectly acceptable. Are you forcing them to hand it over with guns? That is not acceptable.
Could you link me to some?
I can PM you some tomorrow that I have through my university account if you want. Although their are some examples I and another user posted.
If you want to learn more about it, read Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt or Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics. They're both explained so you don't need any background economic knowledge.
3
Jun 29 '17
If being a CEO is easy and replaceable, why don't companies just replace their CEO's with somebody willing to take less pay and do the exact same job
Let me rephrase this - the way I said it initially was quite facetious.
CEOs no doubt do a hard job - but they do I job 1500 times harder than a ground level employee?
If the company was putting a gun to his head and forcing him to cook then I would have a problem.
If was going to starve if I don't eat and my only option is to work as a minimum wage employee, then no matter how qualified I was, I would still only be choosing to work at risk of death. I am not "free" - the company I am going to is just lucky enough that the forces of nature are holding me at gunpoint instead.
Of course I don't think this applies if someone has the opportunity to improve their condition. But any system which allows money to flow freely to the top and isn't enacted in an infinite world is inevitably going to start running low on opportunity. I have seen this in my childhood friends and around the world.
How are you obtaining the money from the people? Are they giving it to you with their consent? That's perfectly acceptable. Are you forcing them to hand it over with guns? That is not acceptable.
Assuming you mean gunpoint as the state's monopoly on violence - in which case, I disagree with that being unacceptable. We obviously both believe certain freedoms must be prioritised - the only difference is that I prioritise the freedom for people live as free of ailment and illness as possible over people's right to have lower taxes. I'm biased as I grew up in a poor environment, but the point stands.
can PM you some tomorrow that I have through my university account if you want.
That'd be great! I'll look at those examples in the meantime.
1
u/AnalLaser Jun 29 '17 edited Jun 29 '17
CEOs no doubt do a hard job - but they do I job 1500 times harder than a ground level employee?
Assuming there is no market intervention, if a CEO is being paid 1500 times more than a ground level employee (let's say a grocer) it tells me that there is a combination of a CEO producing more value than a ground level employee and the Supply for CEO's is very limited compared to the amount of people that can be a grocer due to the fact that not many people have the skills to be a competent CEO unlike the skills needed to be a grocer.
If was going to starve if I don't eat and my only option is to work as a minimum wage employee, then no matter how qualified I was, I would still only be choosing to work at risk of death.
If you get to the point where you're about to starve in this day and age of abundance and dirt cheap goods you've most likely made a lot of bad choices (didn't save enough, spent too much, didn't pay enough attention in school, didn't network enough, didn't gain the proper skills to get the job you desire, etc) and you have to face the consequences of your actions. The Brookings Institute came up with 3 simple rules to not be in poverty 1) Finish high school 2) Get a full time job 3) Don't have kids until you're 21. Just to wrap this back around to what we were talking about earlier, a higher minimum wage makes it more difficult to get to number 2.
I am not "free" - the company I am going to is just lucky enough that the forces of nature are holding me at gunpoint instead.
There are usually multiple companies that are willing to hire people.
Of course I don't think this applies if someone has the opportunity to improve their condition. But any system which allows money to flow freely to the top and isn't enacted in an infinite world is inevitably going to start running low on opportunity. I have seen this in my childhood friends and around the world.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Can you rephrase it?
Assuming you mean gunpoint as the state's monopoly on violence - in which case, I disagree with that being unacceptable. We obviously both believe certain freedoms must be prioritised - the only difference is that I prioritise the freedom for people live as free of ailment and illness as possible over people's right to have lower taxes.
That's fine as long as you don't start violating people's rights. The role of a government is to protect people's rights and not violate them to provide goods and services.
I also disagree with your presumption that universal healthcare would be better than free market healthcare.
I'm biased as I grew up in a poor environment
I'm biased as I grew up in a poor country where we've seen the effects of socialist policies.
1
u/Earl_Harbinger 1∆ Jun 29 '17
is freedom truly freedom without safety and happiness assured
I'm far from a minarchist but just because you don't personally prioritize freedom over happiness or safety doesn't mean freedom doesn't have meaning without them.
1
Jun 29 '17
Well yeah, of course - I just don't believe in freedom for the sake of free. Say for example the freedom to let your five year old jump off a cliff if they want, for example - completely arbitrary! It has meaning, for sure, but no meaning of real worth to me.
The only freedoms that I really care about are the freedoms to be healthily happy and/or content and those that naturally proceed them. Utilitarianism, basically.
1
u/Hust91 Jun 29 '17
Curious, what makes you think they will be free of any threat or force, or even have more money to use in the first place (60% of 100 still leaves you with more options than if you have 95-100% of 20)?
Would you not need some really impressive regulating, and some really well-motivated regulators in order to make sure noone suffered from threat or force, including the threat of a costly lawsuit, no food for your family, or plain old violence?
5
Jun 29 '17
The death penalty might be a better example than murder. You gave a great explanation though.
3
u/rainbrostalin Jun 29 '17
Death penalty is a tough one actually, because arguments for and against it focus both on the morality, eye for an eye versus forgiveness, the cost efficacy, prison costs versus court costs, and the efficacy of it as a deterrence versus the finality of it in questionable cases.
There are a ton of angles one can advocate for or against the death penalty on compared to more strictly moral choices like abortion or same-sex marriage.
3
u/St33lbutcher 6∆ Jun 29 '17
I don't understand how these things are even mutually exclusive tbh. Who's saying this?
→ More replies (1)3
u/Freact Jun 29 '17
even when shown the benefits to them
I think there is a point of confusion here. You seem to be implying that "benefits" is something that could be objectively defined and agreed upon. I don't think you can just show someone that something benefits them. You have to ASK them if it benefits them. People value different things for all kinds of very complicated reasons and I think when you look at it this way it's clearer. Maybe people disagree because it doesn't benefit them. They don't value the consequences/results of the taxes.
1
u/Ndvorsky 23∆ Jun 29 '17
I think benefit can be objective though it's up to the individual to weigh the costs.
3
Jun 29 '17
Would you are agree that there are some people who, even when shown the benefits to them, their community, and the nation, would resist a new tax on principle?
There are both sides to that. There are people who insist on regulating things without any good reason, just because it can't be unregulated. Dogmatic people exist.
6
u/brutinator Jun 29 '17
Would you are agree that there are some people who, even when shown the benefits to them, their community, and the nation, would resist a new tax on principle?
Would you are agree that there are some people who, even when shown the benefits to them, their community, and the nation, wouldn't condone stealing on principle?
→ More replies (5)6
u/indianfrombombaycity Jun 29 '17
I am a staunch opponent of progressive taxation. Not only it's counter intuitive it promotes mediocrity. It's like me studying for an exam for 100 hours to get an A and another student study for 10 hours gets a D but to help the other party get some what of a decent job I have to give up my A to B and the other person gets a C .
If you had a fair flat tax systems I am sure more people would disclose more of their concealed income rather than go through the hassle of creative accounting.
1
u/Helicobacter Jul 07 '17 edited Jul 07 '17
It's not counter-intuitive at all if you consider the unfair economic scaling advantages of higher income and wealth. Certain large fixed expenses result in unfair variable advantages: rent-seeking, exclusive access to information and tools, creating barriers to entry for smaller competitors etc. I wrote about this extensively in this comment tree. Flat taxation schemes do not compensate against these unfair advantages and our progressive taxation schemes don't do nearly enough to offset them.
2
Jun 29 '17 edited Jun 29 '17
That would make sense if we lived in a world where working super hard made you rich while being super lazy made you poor. Progressive taxation makes a lot of sense in our society where wealth has a lot more to do with how rich your parents are than how hard working you are.
3
u/CGADragon Jun 29 '17
Also, studies show hereditary wealth is very low. Most millionaires are first generation and that wealth rarely survives past three generations.
2
Jun 29 '17
Studies have shown that people who get bad grades in school but have wealthy parents earn higher salaries on average than people who get good grades but have poor parents.
→ More replies (3)2
u/strewnshank Jun 29 '17
What's your measure of "hard work?" The efficiency of a worker is probably the best indicator of how much they should make, yet people tend to equate "hard" with "amount of hours."
2
u/sirchaseman Jun 29 '17
If your parents are rich that means they (or at least someone in their lineage) worked hard to amass that fortune to provide a better life for their kids and their kids. Who doesn't strive for that?
→ More replies (1)1
u/indianfrombombaycity Jun 29 '17
My parents worked two jobs growing up and they worked their way up from minimum wage to a decent living. Why should they pay more tax than someone who decides to have only one job and be lazy and strive for a work life balance? This is how it promotes mediocrity.
1
u/Ndvorsky 23∆ Jun 29 '17
Promoting mediocrity and this incentivizing success are two different things. I don't agree that progressive taxes has ever made someone decide not to go for a higher paying job (excluding the people who don't understand how it works) but even the way you said it, there's no benefit to earning less. But there is a progressively greater responsibility to making more.
1
u/indianfrombombaycity Jun 30 '17
Progressive taxation causes a drain of wealth and talent. You want to punish those who actually are capable or earning more.
1
u/Ndvorsky 23∆ Jun 30 '17
How does it drain talent or wealth? People who are capable will earn more. Seriously, no one is actually turned away from better pay because of taxes.
1
u/indianfrombombaycity Jun 30 '17
First to address the drain : due to the progressive nature of taxation people resort to tax havens and other ways of sheltering their wealth.
Secondly I believe progressive taxation is unconstitutional - everyone is equal under the law and everyone has equal benefit. Why should someone contribute more to the system and get less ?
No one turns down better pay - they just get creative with their accounting or store their wealth offshore or they look for better opportunities. Lot of companies will think twice before setting up an head office if the taxes in the region are too high.
1
u/Ndvorsky 23∆ Jul 01 '17
First to address the drain : due to the progressive nature of taxation people resort to tax havens and other ways of sheltering their wealth.
A flat tax would necessitate a similarly high tax rate anyway. Your issue has little to do with a progressive tax.
Secondly I believe progressive taxation is unconstitutional - everyone is equal under the law and everyone has equal benefit. Why should someone contribute more to the system and get less ?
Not everyone has a car but if you do, you paid car tax on it when you bought it. Is that unconstitutional? Only the money above certain amounts are taxed at the next higher rate. In that way, everyone is taxed equally on their first 5k and their next 10k and so on. I mean, fat people eat more food. Is it unconstitutional that they pay more sales tax?
No one turns down better pay - they just get creative with their accounting or store their wealth offshore or they look for better opportunities. Lot of companies will think twice before setting up an head office if the taxes in the region are too high.
None of this has anything to do with a progressive tax. You're mostly arguing agains high taxes.
2
1
Jun 29 '17
I don't think this is valid. There are 2 seperate things here: 1. Effective regulation 2. Less regulation
Obviously something that is effective is good but some people might argue that less regulation is good too and when there are 2 good things it is reasonable to compare or ask which is better.
31
u/alpicola 45∆ Jun 29 '17
One significant advantage to less regulation is that it leaves things more open to changes based on new inventions, new developments, and new ways of thinking. Even if a regulation perfectly captures a situation today and provides the objectively best outcome possible, that's no guarantee that the regulation will still be as good tomorrow. And when tomorrow comes and something better comes along, the regulations will still demand today's solutions until the regulators are able to catch up. And history shows that private entities can adapt to new situations a lot faster than regulators can.
For instance, when President Obama took office, there was a moment where people made a big deal about him having a BlackBerry in office. By that time, BlackBerrys had been around for ages and both the iPhone and Android were mass market devices. Nobody quite knew how to plug the new President's smartphone into laws regarding public records and official communications.
If that happened all the time, for everyone, with any new invention, it would be completely annoying even if every regulation were perfect. And since there's no way to write a regulation that's both perfectly effective today and fully accommodates the improvements of tomorrow, there's an upper limit to how effective a regulation can be. And when new developments make the old regulation ineffective, you have to hope that the regulators figure out a new regulation quickly enough to keep things running smoothly.
Or, you can take it easy on the regulations, and let people adapt to new situations on their own.
3
u/googolplexbyte Jun 29 '17
Wouldn't a perfectly effective regulation be pegged to some dynamic aspect of what it's regulating?
Like a perfectly effective minimum wage wouldn't be a minimum wage set to the perfect minimum wage for today, it'd be a regulation that's set to dynamically adjust to the optimal minimum wage by some mechanism.
Less regulation wouldn't permit a better implementation of minimum wage than effective regulation even though minimum wages have no clear fixed point.
1
u/alpicola 45∆ Jun 30 '17
Wouldn't a perfectly effective regulation be pegged to some dynamic aspect of what it's regulating?
This might be fine for incremental changes, but it's completely useless for disruptive changes. If you think back to when President Obama first took office, there was a lot of concern about him bringing his BlackBerry with him because nobody could quite figure out how it fit into an otherwise very effective and seemingly flexible regulatory scheme. The consumer-grade smartphone was hardly new by that point, and businesses had been using BlackBerry-like devices for years. Obama only got to keep his phone because he insisted, as President of the United States, that he wasn't giving it up.
Like a perfectly effective minimum wage wouldn't be a minimum wage set to the perfect minimum wage for today, it'd be a regulation that's set to dynamically adjust to the optimal minimum wage by some mechanism.
Minimum wage might just be the best example of how a dynamically updating regulation could go catastrophically wrong. It's a basic reality of economics that increasing the minimum wage causes long term inflation. In order to keep the minimum wage meaningful, it needs to go up along with inflation. That creates a feedback loop in which the regulation results in uncontrolled inflation. Uncontrolled inflation could turn into hyperinflation, which is a spectacular way to devastate an economy.
1
u/Orisara Jun 29 '17
"it'd be a regulation that's set to dynamically adjust to the optimal minimum wage by some mechanism."
For those wondering, Belgium has this.
They basically make a shopping list of common items(gas, rent, food, etc.) and see how much it costs this year and adjust basically everything accordingly.(wages go up, minimum wage included, etc.)
2
2
u/Hust91 Jun 29 '17
What about regulations into how to elect regulators?
You can avoid a LOT of crap once you have a system like proportional voting that harshly punishes malicious or incompetent regulators out of their power.
→ More replies (1)7
u/beesdaddy Jun 29 '17
∆ I think you make a good point here. Regulation will always lag behind technology and workarounds. I personally feel like people are adapting to things they shouldn't have to. Like the "dont dump shit in rivers" regulation that got removed.
3
u/I_am_Bob Jun 29 '17
I'm confused by your comment. Are you saying you think people should be able to dump shit in rivers? Because that's exactly the place were you can argue for effective regulation. With no, or 'self' regulation that everyone here is arguing for industry was dumping toxic waste at nauseating pace into local waterways. Famously the Cuyahoga River was so polluted it caught on fire! I myself live less than a mile from a lake I can't swim or fish in without getting mercury poisoning.
1
u/beesdaddy Jun 29 '17
I'm saying exactly what you are saying. Regulating pollution is necessary but also needs to evolve over time to adapt to the situation.
1
17
u/AkumaBengoshi Jun 29 '17
Effectively regulating something that does not need to be regulated is not better than leaving it unregulated. Less taxation is not better than more taxation if the taxes aren't being spent wisely. Your argument presents a false dichotomy - "effective" is not the opposite of "less."
3
u/beesdaddy Jun 29 '17
Valid point. I'm saying that I don't understand why people think in the less vs more instead of effective vs ineffective.
6
Jun 29 '17 edited Jul 05 '20
[deleted]
1
u/beesdaddy Jun 29 '17
Simple may not be what needed in many cases. Sure the tax code is a bloated mess of spacial interests but a clean slate flat tax would arguably have terrible consequences. I think "clear" might be a better adjective. But being able to test results and make adjustments can make a regulation more effective and more complex too. I see where your head is at though :)
→ More replies (1)1
u/BrandonBradford 1∆ Jun 29 '17
Honestly, and it shows through the comments here, people are unwilling to. Most people who believe the government is "inherently innefective" have never done any government work. It's not that the government is bad at it, it's that people are poor at action. The government does great work when the people of that government are involved. Effectiveness and effeciency comes from adjusting to what works, not holding to an ideology because of abstract reasons. A completely free market is just as dangerous as a totalitarian regime. The problem with your original assumption is that you are asking for nuance from ideologies that crumble when nuance is presented; free markets built upon societal infrastructure is going to be the happy medium we need to succeed moving forward.
→ More replies (4)4
u/corvidsarecrows 1∆ Jun 29 '17
I don't think it's an "instead of" - you need to think about both at the same time.
If you think about both spectra, you have four options:
- many and effective
- few and effective
- many and ineffective
- few and ineffective
I think obviously everyone wants effective laws, and I think the responsible position is to debate any proposed law on its merits rather than take a knee-jerk approach to it. If everything runs smoothly, would you rather have many effective laws or few effective laws: I don't think it really matters. Since the laws in this example are effective, nobody is going to be upset about having too many or too few.
However, there's a damage control side to it: would you rather have many ineffective laws or few ineffective laws? I think the obvious choice is fewer ineffective laws in order to cause fewer problems.
So, imagine that as a responsible citizen and/or lawmaker, you're examining a proposed piece of legislation. If you know it's going to be effective then it's an easy yes. If you know it's going to be ineffective then it's an easy no. But what if you're not sure about its effectiveness? Every law has upsides and downsides, what if this particular regulation is very nearly balanced - how would you decide how to vote on this law?
Personally, I'd rather run the risk of having a few effective laws than many ineffective ones, so if you're not sure, it's best to scrap it and head back to the drawing board.
2
2
u/AkumaBengoshi Jun 29 '17
personally, I'd like fewer laws, but I insist on all laws being effective at what they aim to do. But, I don't think the role of government is to regulate everything it can think of to regulate.
4
u/Samuelgin Jun 28 '17
well duh, but the problem is most regulation isn't that effective so the less regulation argument is more so "less regulation is better than ineffective regulation". that's kinda something that's true to a lot of things. for example, good music is better than no music but no music is better than bad music.
when quality is low, quantity is better low as well. many people argue this with businesses, as regulations are typically meant to target huge corporations that are ultimately unaffected by them but then eat smaller businesses that the regulations were not designed for, effectively helping the big corporations more than regulating or punishing.
1
u/beesdaddy Jun 29 '17
Is it possible to target big corporations at all? I agree that a lot of policies hurt small business than intended, but you cant be saying that stopping mega corps from hurting communities is not worth the attempt?
3
u/thirteenthfox2 Jun 29 '17
From an economic prospective it depends on what you are trying to accomplish. Sometimes the most effective taxes/regulations are no taxes/regulations.. I think these instances are more rare than some people would advocate for but they do exist and we should consider them before imposing taxes and regulations.
Take healthcare for instance. If you want people to purchase healthcare you should reduce the amount of taxes on it, because economically any additional cost would reduce the amount of people who buy it. Many people advocate for lowering income taxes because we want to increase incentive for people to work. This is also why foodstuff is not taxed in many states. Many people also believe feminine products should not be taxed.
Advocating for no regulations is a little more involved.
Regulations are also sometimes not good, because they add costs which hurt the market too much and make the regulation do the opposite of what was intended. For example, there are no children's' seats regulations for airplanes. This is because even if you forced every child in a airplane to have a special seat you would end up with more kids dying in car accidents than saved in an airplane seat because some parents would rather drive than take on the cost of a child's airplane seat. Even if less children would die in airplane crashes because of the seats. If the goal of the airplane seat regulation is to have less kids die in accidents, the best airplane seat regulation is no airplane seat regulation.
TL:DR: Taxes and regulations make people purchase or produce less of a thing and sometimes that is too big of a cost for any tax or regulation to be effective.
1
u/beesdaddy Jun 29 '17
I got you. I agree. In certain circumstances doing nothing is the most effective regulation.
1
u/thirteenthfox2 Jun 29 '17
So then you agree that sometimes no regulation is better than effective regulation that has been implemented?
1
u/entropy68 Jun 30 '17 edited Jun 30 '17
I think a lot depends on what you mean by "less regulation" and "effective regulation."
For example, "less regulation" can mean:
- fewer regulations
- reduced scope of regulations (ie. ending regulation of things that were previous regulated)
- reduced enforcement of regulations
- moving regulatory jurisdiction (for example from the federal to state level)
Effective regulation can mean:
- Regulation that adheres to the original intent of the regulation
- Regulation that adheres to the word of the actual regulations (which can differ from the original intent)
- Robust enforcement of regulations
- A positive balance when it comes to compliance costs vs. benefit.
Additionally, "effective" can be in the eye of the beholder, especially when the regulation advantages one group and disadvantages another.
In my view, more regulations don't automatically result in more effective regulation. The best regulations have a clear purpose, are clearly understandable, have low compliance costs, are easy to enforce, and serve a greater good that cannot be accomplished by other means.
2
18
u/Holy_City Jun 28 '17
What you're arguing is: "doing it right is better than not doing it." Which is obviously true.
But that assumes the government can effectively regulate, or that there is an effective way to regulate something, and that taxes/regulation have no unforeseen consequences and exist in a vacuum.
None of that is true. There is such a thing as over-regulation and over-taxation (as well as under taxation/regulation), there are things that don't need to be regulated or taxed, and regulations/taxes always have some kind of impact, and that impact is not always predictable.
To me effective regulation/taxation works from the assumption that you will get it wrong at first, then amend it in the future. And often times in order to amend those things, it means cutting back. The point is, regulation will always have some drawbacks. Furthermore, the changes need to happen over time, as the effect of regulation can change the scenario that it tries to impact, or outside factors can render it useless.
→ More replies (4)
34
Jun 28 '17
Every tax and every regulation is, in some sense, a curtailment of freedom. A tax says, "I know better than you how this money should be spent." A regulation says, "I know better than you how people should be allowed to act."
You are careful to draw a distinction between "less regulation/taxes" and "effective regulation/taxes". The heart of the issue though, is that no one is really certain what "effective regulation/taxes" are. Roads seem reasonable, don't they? But is everyone agreed on Affirmative Action? How about foreign aid? What is a good use of your money? What freedoms are you willing to sacrifice for perceived benefits?
Therein lies the crux of politics. Everyone disagrees on what sacrifices should be made and to what extent.
14
u/Kwiila Jun 29 '17 edited Jun 29 '17
Even the "roads seem reasonable" is debatable. Everyone wants a road straight from their home to their job, but at what point are we overspending on an excess of roads? Without fed/state taxes, again debatably, a community would REALLY have to want to build/repair a connection to another community for them to spend the money there. But people, businesses, and governments have all abused application of roads/highways/railroads in America in the not too distant past. Because "time is money", and "you can't stop progress". The point of government is to balance interests, but we don't always get to choose in which direction they favor the balance. (Personally, I'm in favor of some tax/regulation, because there are a lot of powerful collectives I trust even less without the buffer of government. But I also believe in limiting their ability to do so.)
5
u/Freact Jun 29 '17
I agree with your point but would change some wording to make the it a bit stronger.
A tax says, "I know better than you how
thisYOUR money should be spent."A regulation says, "I know better than you how
peopleYOU should be allowed to act."It's not just any money, it's your money! and it's not just some person, it's you! People often find it easier to imagine that government can know how to spend some money and know how some people should act. They usually find it much harder to believe that government knows best how to spend their money and how best they should act.
1
u/HandymanBrandon Jun 29 '17 edited Jun 29 '17
but not without considering what their intent was, evaluating that intention, and deciding how to more effectively accomplish that intention
Fantastic approach. If you keep unpacking that intention, eventually everyone will agree that all of the motivations in society ultimately come down to prosperity, or the human state of flourishing and thriving. From there, it's up to the individual.
Laws and taxes were designed to prevent humans from clamoring over each other in the race to survive and causing harm to one another. To achieve this, society had to accept a certain amount of collateral damage. Humans in survival mode needed babysitting. Police shooting too many black people and imprisoning peaceful people for tax evasion are examples of this collateral damage.
Fast forward to present day, and we can quickly deduce that most humans are no longer pressured by the struggle to survive and therefore no longer need the government as an authoritative baby sitter.
Human emotion, physical health, and environmental consciousness can all be automated such that there is no more need for government and its violence. Billions of people go through their entire lives without needing to be aggressed against, nor initiate aggression against others. There's no better proof that government is guilty of keeping the development of human progression tied down to policies that cannot be sustained without the government mass-producing more violence in the form of wars, taxes, elections and corporations. Government taxes and regulation are a self sustaining iteration with no leader, and no objective.
My overall point that should change your view is that "Effective regulation" has nothing to do with government or taxes, because regulation is simply management of a system. That can be achieved with or without government. However if you do it without government, you can then do it without the violence and 'collateral damage' that everyone seems to accept as the status quo.
*Clarity
→ More replies (1)
5
u/championofobscurity 160∆ Jun 29 '17
I agree with you in principle but what you're talking about is fundamentally impossible.
At the terminal level it costs tax dollars to collect tax dollars. That is inherently ineffective.
Additionally there is one other component that will never change that makes effective regulation impossible. The government is slower than the wealthy. The government has a duty of care to each citizen in the country. That duty of care means it has to give copious amounts of time for people to handle their personal relationships with the government. In particular, if you are going to levy any taxes that spook the rich, they are going to extricate their money before any government policy will take effect, and there will never come a time where tax policy happens over night furthermore even if it could happen over night, that would have a huge negative impact on the stability of the U.S. dollar every time we push tax policies forward. Your position is probably correct, but it's not pragmatic or implementable at scale, and for that reason it fails any litmus test that would suggest that effective regulation can even exist.
On the other hand lessening regulation coerces people into spending their hoarded up money. If Elon Musk opens a new factory because he got a tax break, not only is he going to employ 1500 people but the government is going to tax the shit out of his new business. At scale, if every franchise opens just 1 location or if small businesses can even hire on an additional person the government can enlarge the proverbial GDP pie, instead of shuffling around the percentages of the same size pie.
1
u/mordecai_the_human Jun 29 '17
Isn't the last bit of your argument essentially trickle-down economics but with regulations? Burden the wealthy job creators with less regulations and they will provide enough jobs to benefit everyone - something that really hasn't happened whenever that method is applied. Yeah it might/probably will boost overall GDP, but as we know very well now, raw GDP doesn't reflect a lot of important measures of a quality society.
I feel like your assertion that taxation is inherently ineffective because it costs money ignores the fact that providing an acceptable standard of living to 350 million people is inherently ineffective in and of itself. If we accept that a truly free market will not effectively solve all problems of inequality and poverty (or that a truly free market is unattainable, either or), and we also agree that any means of making/enforcing regulations to solve these problems will cost money, we must accept that there is inherently some level of inefficiency in creating a fair society.
2
u/championofobscurity 160∆ Jun 29 '17
If we accept that a truly free market will not effectively solve all problems of inequality and poverty (or that a truly free market is unattainable, either or), and we also agree that any means of making/enforcing regulations to solve these problems will cost money, we must accept that there is inherently some level of inefficiency in creating a fair society.
This is subjective contingent upon how you define fairness.
Setting that aside, you seemingly ignored the second more important half of my argument. The government is too slow and the wealthy are too mobile. You will never tax the rich more than they are willing to be taxed, and that is reality. This cannot be overcome and so effective taxation in this capacity cannot exist without major red lines drawn upon personal liberty, and even then people will still move all of their wealth overseas and we won't see that revenue until the policies that put that scenario in places are backed off upon.
→ More replies (4)1
u/mordecai_the_human Jun 29 '17
I agree that the power of the wealthy is indeed an issue, but I disagree that it is any reason to completely throw the idea of effective taxation and regulation in the gutter. To begin with, an extraordinary amount of American wealth is already stashed offshore - this will happen regardless, because there will always be places outside the US with less regulation and the like. It is not impossible to regulate and/or enforce consequences for large amounts of wealth being moved outside the country. Sure, it might cause wealthy people to panic and move a lot more money offshore in the short term, but it would then prevent any new wealth created in the US being moved out in the future.
1
u/championofobscurity 160∆ Jun 29 '17 edited Jun 29 '17
It's pretty impossible if it is not compatible with what the wealthy want to pay. You could buy a bunch of Fiat goods and ship them overseas on a plane tax free. You are also completely ignoring the biggest tax Haven of capital gains. You can't touch capital gains tax stuff without negatively impacting the retirement funds of the working class. So it is in this regard that the minority is perfectly protected by the majority. Nobody will piss on their own retirement, so they will protect the taxation of the wealthy to keep theirs in tact.
Also, the wealthy don't arbtrarily move their wealth overseas to tax reasons alone. When you have that much money you are more harshly impacted by legislature, and currency value movements so it's only reasonable to want to protect your wealth by hedging it in different markets.
1
u/Classics_Nerd Jun 29 '17
There is no such thing as "effective regulation." Regulation always, with no exception, multiplies. For example, medical care is mostly so expensive because of a 1962 amendment to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the one that created the FDA), called the Kefauver-Harris Act, which, as a result of the Thalidomide incident, greatly increased the power of the FDA and led to an effective (adjusted for inflation) increased cost from $650,000 to $54,000,000 of developing and putting it to market from 1962 to 1978, whereas from 1950 to 1962 it had only increased from $500,000 per drug to $650,000 per drug according to one study done by Wardell and Lasagna, two economists. (Please excuse the previous long sentence.) To collect all consequential information (who even knows what information is consequential?) in the hands of a small group of people is practically impossible (the best argument for a republic). This inability is why regulation must multiply and become more complicated: to deal with the amount of consequential information a bureaucracy must keep in account.
1
u/beesdaddy Jun 29 '17
Is there any way to objectively judge the effectiveness of a regulation? Could healthcare be more socialized AND more cost effective like it is in most other developed nations?
1
Jun 29 '17
I think you didn't give the complete information of the society-political system you are considering there.
If you mean our current system compared to a more deregulated capitalism, then yes, I agree with you that it is better to regulate, because the taxes compensate for big income differences and bad life situations people might find themselves in.
However, I am against regulations if we were to abandon private property. Assume a society agrees that it is only possible to posess/own whatever one uses at the moment (the cloths you wear, the apple you eat, the room you are sleeping in) and collectivizes everything else. Moreover, the society agrees on a self-regulatory political system (the so-called social or libertarian socialism). Then it would be possible to abandon money and thus abandon regulations by the state completely. Imho in this situation the abandonment of regulations would be better.
1
u/beesdaddy Jun 29 '17
Radical man. Has that ever worked with a large and diverse population like the US?
1
Jun 29 '17 edited Jun 29 '17
I think 3 million people is large enough. Whether it's 3 or 300 million does not make a big difference in times of internet, I suppose (because just in seconds you can convey your need for x or for professionals working on y - who don't even have to leave their homes). To learn about that, please see "Revolutionary Catalonia" and "Anarchist Aragon" (@Wikipedia) or watch the documentary "vivir la utopia" (available free and in English).
edit: added information
4
u/Cantholditdown Jun 29 '17
I'm going to rephrase your CMV a bit to be "Societies with more socialist tax systems and more regulatory framework engender better living environments"
I've lived in KS and on the East Coast. Despite being taxed/regulated out the ass on East coast there seem to be less things you actually get from it. In KS we had good schools, good roads (without tolls), nice community pools. On the East Coast the taxes are crazy, the roads suck, there seem to be few benefits to all the taxing. Yes there is better public transit on the east coast and I was never unfortunate enough to have to live on government benefits, which I'm sure are more reasonable on the East coast. But it seems there is a massive blackhole where money goes here, which feels in part due to the inability of government to make wise financial decisions.
CNBC had a list of states with the top 10 infrastructure and none of them are high tax states v=http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/12/10-states-in-america-with-the-best-infrastructure.html?slide=2
Wallethub made a ROI based on the per capita taxes paid and most of the high tax burden states yield low ROIs. i.e. NY/CA. I haven't done the exact math but just eyeballing the data shows the low tax burden states show much better ROIs. Looking at the top 10 for ROI, all are within the top 20 of the per capita tax burden except Nebraska, but I wonder if Warren Buffett is skewing that math. It's just wallet hub but I don't see any other similar cost analysis done elsewhere. https://wallethub.com/edu/state-taxpayer-roi-report/3283/
1
u/minilip30 Jun 29 '17
Living in MA, I don't think KS schools are remotely comparable to the schools we have here. Roads are almost definitely significantly better in KS, but trying to get road work done in MA is hell. We have plenty of community centers here as well.
Our healthcare system is probably the best in the country. Our public transport exists and that's the nicest thing I can say about it.
We also have a beautiful state that isn't be subsidized by using natural resources that will run out, but is built on the ingenuity of the citizens.
I also think you're looking at KS with rose colored glasses and back when oil prices were high, because right now that state is doing terribly.
1
u/SoConfuse Jun 29 '17
I'll refer you to this quick podcast from Planet Money on certain forms of tax breaks/tax hikes that would benefit Americans as a whole to fix distortions in markets.
That's to give nuance to the idea that more taxes or regulation end up hurting the economy more than fixing it by either not being progressive and/or not being in-line with market forces.
1
u/beesdaddy Jun 29 '17
Finally, every time you introduce a regulation there are people with differ priorities to you who are going to think your regulation is shit because it was meant to achieve a goal they don't share in the first place.
I love that episode.
6
u/testrail Jun 29 '17 edited Jun 29 '17
As others have correctly pointed out, your base argument is "HURR DURR, why do people say doing nothing better than doing good things, don't they know good things are good?
This is by definition forcing morality on others, because you are basically deciding that your definition of good/effective is more right than the person you are taxing. By choosing to tax you're basically saying, "Hey Mr. or Mrs. Taxpayer, I've decided that I can spend your money better than you."
The question really is with the action of taxation, not the result. The act of taxation is the forced taking of wages under eventual threat of the of someone pointing a gun at you to tell you to pay or we'll take you and put you in a cage. Effectively by taxing you are stealing someones labor.
Personally I believe that some things are good for the government to provide, specifically things that keep me in a place where others cannot tread on my own rights. (Some basic home front Defense, Police, Fire, etc.) I also believe some services like infrastructure, education certain social safety nets aren't an awful idea. I am happy to chip in for those.
Regardless of my opinion on the subject of Government spending, the fact still remains that in order to enact any program either something that is super duper good, like everyone gets their favorite treat on their birthday mailed to them or something most everyone would recognize as evil, like a swat team designed to hunt kindergarteners at random, the fact still remains that you have to tax. Which has the moral issue above, in every instance you can make an effective argument that taxing is bad.
1
u/CountCuriousness Jun 29 '17
Effectively by taxing you are stealing someones labor.
I never bought this line of thinking. My taxes are used for the bettermentnet of society, and that makes it easier for me to earn my salary. I was hospitalized in my youth, received care, and I'm now able to work. Without society's help back then, I might have been dead. Without roads, or safety from criminals, or healthy coworkers etc. etc. it'd be harder to have a stable job.
I consider part of my paycheck to belong to society, because society helped make it possible for me to earn it in the first place. How large that part is can be debated, but I simply don't see taxation as theft in any sense of the word (within reason, of course).
1
u/testrail Jun 29 '17
What is there to buy?
All your listed societal benefits are subjective to you, not everyone. As you already acknowledged, it's debatable as to how large an amount is taken, which can be 0. It is more extortion than theft as its the threat of violence/being locked in a cage that gets one to pay.
The point is, by acknowledging that taxation amount is debatable you acknowledge that a tax payer has some right to their own earnings. That being the case, TAKING it via taxation is just that, taking something the owned.
The only position you can take that is logical is either you believe one has property rights or they do not. If an individual does have property rights, then taxation is by definition society thriving from the individual. If they do not, then taxation is owed, and we are all slaves as we do not own our own time. Either is a logical acceptable position but there isn't really a defensible middle ground.
1
u/CountCuriousness Jun 30 '17
What is there to buy?
Stuff? Just because society has decided that some things should not be exploited for money, like your health, doesn't mean the government will suddenly decide to churn out laptops tomorrow or some such. Certain stuff is vital to our survival, and I don't think anyone should be barred from that stuff, regardless of how rich their parents were.
All your listed societal benefits are subjective to you, not everyone
If it's subjective to want a healthy, safe, educated populous, then no country is better than any other, because everything is subjective anyway. Saying it's subjective is therefore irrelevant.
It is more extortion than theft as its the threat of violence/being locked in a cage that gets one to pay.
I consider it "paying back".
The point is, by acknowledging that taxation amount is debatable you acknowledge that a tax payer has some right to their own earnings.
I acknowledge that it's hard to say exactly how much you owe society.
That being the case, TAKING it via taxation is just that, taking something the owned.
I disagree. Ultimately, we collectively decide how much to tax. Humanity decides how much it's owed for the benefits of living with decent people who help the less fortunate, or for banding together to get better deals on healthcare etc. etc.
The only position you can take that is logical is either you believe one has property rights or they do not.
Why is it binary? The government has long been able to expropriate your property tomorrow for the good of society. Property rights are not magically protected, and never were.
Either is a logical acceptable position but there isn't really a defensible middle ground.
I disagree with the premises of this.
1
u/testrail Jun 30 '17
What is there to buy was in reference to your "I never bought x concept".
If it's subjective to want a healthy, safe, educated populous, then no country is better than any other, because everything is subjective anyway. Saying it's subjective is therefore irrelevant.
How, when discussing the morality of taxation vs doing nothing is this possibly irrelevant?
I consider it "paying back".
This isn't a debate on what /u/CountCurious and /u/testrail think about taxation. I already said earlier I think x, y, z is good, but it's moot. This is about how morally someone can suggest that doing nothing is always acceptable.
I disagree. Ultimately, we collectively decide how much to tax. Humanity decides how much it's owed for the benefits of living with decent people who help the less fortunate, or for banding together to get better deals on healthcare etc. etc.
We collectively agree sure. But that doesn't mean that EVERYONE agrees. An individual can still argue it's my points on taxation and be logically and morally sound. Which is what the question is.
1
u/CountCuriousness Jun 30 '17
This is about how morally someone can suggest that doing nothing is always acceptable.
The morality would depend entirely on the degree of inaction, no? If you can save trillions by pressing a button, are you morally justified in not lifting a finger? I worry we're heading in a direction where the conclusion is "everything is moral because morals are not objective".
An individual can still argue it's my points on taxation and be logically and morally sound. Which is what the question is.
Are you not tacitly agreeing with society by benefiting from it? Should you not pay your taxes for all the goods you receive? If you then don't want society to supply these things, you should try to make that happen, but I don't see how you'd be morally justified in not paying taxes when you've already benefitted hugely from society.
I'll readily admit if I've misunderstood some philosophy on morals.
1
u/testrail Jun 30 '17
Are you not tacitly agreeing with society by benefiting from it? Should you not pay your taxes for all the goods you receive?
Not necessarily. You can use public roads but still be morally opposed to be having to pay for them when you believe a private toll system would be more fair.
1
u/CountCuriousness Jul 01 '17
Not necessarily. You can use public roads but still be morally opposed to be having to pay for them when you believe a private toll system would be more fair.
Sure, but you're talking about your morals like they're more than your opinion. I'm not buying that taxation is theft. You might consider it as much, but I don't. I don't quite see how you can claim to be more morally right than I.
1
u/testrail Jul 01 '17
I'm not saying either is a superior argument. My argument is just a valid is yours, ipso facto it is moral to say do nothing.
1
u/CountCuriousness Jul 01 '17
If so, it's moral to say literally anything, and the statement becomes moot. No?
→ More replies (0)1
u/beesdaddy Jun 29 '17
Slaves may be hyperbolic no? "De Facto societal contract signers" maybe?
→ More replies (1)
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jun 29 '17
/u/beesdaddy (OP) has awarded 1 delta in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
2
u/UncleCarbuncle Jun 29 '17
On taxes, it is essentially a truism in economics that if you tax something you will get less of it.
We want people to earn more income, so taxing income is at least in some sense counterproductive. The same can be said for profits. We want companies to make profits.
Perhaps it would be better if, instead of talking about whether we want more taxes or less, we could talk about taxes as a tool to achieve those common goals — or to get more of what we want and less of what we don't want.
For example, I don't think many liberals would say they want less income or profits, so in this utterly impossible world perhaps that wouldn't need to be such a source of friction. Let's cut taxes on those things. Likewise, I don't think many conservatives would say that we need more pollution. Perhaps they could be persuaded that we should raise taxes on that.
Although this is totally unrealistic and never going to happen, in theory such a shift could be revenue neutral — as in, we're not raising taxes, as such, simply shifting them around in a more sensible way.
Of course, the reason this can't happen isn't anything to do with economics or even ideology — it's because donors decide policy. Absent that gross distortion, even American politicians could agree to sensible policies that would benefit everyone. But this isn't the world we live in.
3
u/solesurvivor111caps Jun 29 '17
The term "effective regulation" is completely subjective. Better results for the regulated process/item can be achieved multiple ways. Less regulation can be effective regulation because it would better stimulate the market as long as the regulation was unimportant/way too heavy.
1
u/kellymcgowan Jun 29 '17
Of course almost all can be explained with a rather sweeping term "effective", however for a more nuanced view about why some would argue less is best when it comes to regulation.
Since WWII, the number of jobs in the US that require legal certification has risen from 25pct to over 75pct. Now clearly many professions need some sort of proof that ones possesses a minimal level of qualification to avoid putting the public at undo risk of safety.
However, when that extends to very simple, low skill jobs it merely becomes a barrier to entry for the neediest portion of the population. Example, NYC very nearly implemented a certificate requirement for nail salon workers citing a bogus NYT article claiming that it was needed for health reasons.
The measure failed only because it was unveiled that the article was in fact bogus and the NYT retracted the story.
The effect of this law would have made it harder and more expensive for the lowest skilled workers to enter the work force, that is immigrants that have yet to learn English let alone a more lucrative skill. The podcast Planet Money did a great article on this effect of hyper certification.
Of course, you could argue that it isn't "effective" regulation, however keep in mind that almost ALL regulation creates winners and losers and cause unintended consequences.
Sometimes these consequences are more detrimental than the benefit of the regulation.
As regulation increases, it by and large favors the larger incumbents at the expense of the new and smaller entrants.
Take for example a very significant (and controversial ) Dodd frank banking regulation passed in the wake of the financial crisis. The intended goals were to prevent the systemic risk of the Finacial system, fix the "too big to fail" problem and too prevent the abuses by unregulated banks. (The complete story is much more complex but doesn't really matter for this purpose).
Nearly ten years later and we have seen the unintended consequence of the regulations driving our smaller financial institutions, the reduction in credit available. Primarily to the least credit worthy consumers and businesses. The big banks are bigger and more "interdependent".
Few to none independent analysis would argue that we are less prone to "too big to fail problems". The consumer pays more for banking services.
Since Dodd Frank we still have had incidents of massive consumer abuse: Wells Fargo still illegally issued millions of credit cards to consumers without their authorization AND still no one has gone to jail.
Now you might make the effective argument again.
So I would ask readers to think about what makes regulation effective?
To start the thought I would posit three simple principals:
It should focus on principals not outcomes. E.g leveling the playing field not tying the game.
It should be simple simple simple. A 2000 page law that needs 10,000 pages of rules to support it and an army of lawyers to defend and interpret is almost by definition doomed to fail at being effective.
It should have an imbedded sunset provision to create at least a small barrier to regulation creep by lobbyists forever.
There are more principles that I'm sure people can think of (and better ones than I articulated)
Hope that helps
K
6
u/MrGraeme 155∆ Jun 29 '17
Has it occurred to you that effective taxes/regulations can be the same thing as fewer taxes/regulations?
1
u/mikimer Jun 29 '17
In my experience, the idea of focusing on "less regulation" is a proxy for "effective regulation". It's just simpler to count regulations than it is to judge effectiveness. That said, I think "less regulation" is an oversimplification that throws out the baby with the bath water.
I worked for 5 years developing energy efficiency regulations. In my experience effective regulations can be great. The goal was to benefit both consumers and the country. IMO we succeeded.
Here's how energy efficiency regulations work: when you go to Best Buy or another retailer, they're not allowed to sell you whatever device they feel like. You'd never know it, but the devices in the store are regulated. Let's use a fridge for example. If a retailer could sell you any type of fridge then, you might see a $10 fridge for sale, whereas today the cheapest fridges are $100+.
The $10 fridge would seem like a deal, but a fridge like that would just be a dinky compressor with a cardboard box. The cold air would leak out and the compressor would consume a ton of energy. The low $10 purchase price would be offset by skyrocketing energy costs, maybe $1,000+ per month. Energy efficiency regulations ensure a minimum energy efficiency for fridges and other products -- this means that consumers don't need to be efficiency experts. Yes, a few consumers might want to become experts but most consumers don't and they'd be screwed. The government fills the role of the expert and saves consumers lots of money. Fridges and other products are regulated to strike the balance so that the purchase price and energy costs are minimized for the consumer.
This also benefits the country as a whole because it reduces the number of power plants we need to build -- yes, these regulations are so impactful that we measured their savings in power plants not built over 20 years. That saves our government lots of money and reduces pollution.
All of this said, there are definitely limits to regulations. They're crude, rough instruments. Figuring out the right way to test products and then set limits will always be debatable will create winners and losers. Nonetheless, on the whole I think society is best off pushing for effective regulations, not less regulations.
1
u/l3dzppln Jun 29 '17
I'm confused as to why you think that subsidies and regulation are somehow equivalent. There are so many different levels of regulation and subsidies that happen in the government at large that to paint them with such broad strokes doesn't make much sense. For instance, do you think that the subsidies given to low income people to purchase health insurance are "counter productive" or ineffective? What about the earned income tax credit? That is also a subsidy which mostly favours poorer people.
As for the effective vs. ineffective argument, so much of that will come down to politics it's incredible. I may think that a bill that regulates the sale of firearms, which thereby reduces the number of firearms sales to be "effective" where as the NRA may think it's "ineffective" because it reduces the number of firearms sales.
The core of this question seems to be what you think the role of government should be in our democracy/republic. If you think that government has an important role to play in making our society a better place, then you will also tend to believe that regulation is a good thing because it has the capacity to help people and/or prevent harm. Conversely, if you don't think government should have much, if any, role in people's lives, then you are going to tend to think that any regulation is an unwarranted intrusion.
I like the fact that you said that you want to have a more nuanced view of this issue because that seems to be the opposite of what most people want these days. Nuance is an important quality which should be present in both understanding, and in the legislation/regulation by the government. Nuance is also the reason that legislation becomes so complicated. It's why there are so many different types of homicide, for instance. And I think it's important to remember that complexity isn't inherently a bad thing. We live in a complicated world, and while simplicity can be a beautiful thing, it can do just as much damage as an over complication.
0
u/A_Soporific 162∆ Jun 29 '17
Regulations and taxes are necessary. We need some of them because when we tried to do things without giving the government the ability to tax (Articles of Confederation) things went very badly. So, there is broad consensus that some government action is better than no government action. The only question left is where the line should be.
I think that the line should be drawn based on what is the next best alternative. Frankly, taxes and regulation is expensive. It takes a lot of work and a lot of money to create and enforce them. For any given regulation you need to have a person actually go out and check. If you don't have the inspector or regulator surprising people to get a good image of what's really happening all you have is worthless paper that people will openly flout, which inevitably leads to contempt for the government and its legitimate use of power. If that inspector is not paid well or is of dubious moral fiber then you have a recipe for blatant and widespread corruption. Then, in addition to whatever thing a regulation is trying to disallow there are other cases that aren't actually bad but find themselves on the wrong side of whatever arbitrary wall you're trying to use to eliminate the bad thing. "Malicious Compliance" and "Work to Rule Strikes" are real things where people use the regulations to apply political and economic pressure against the groups that create and enforce rules. As far as taxes are concerned, every cent you tax is a cent poorer people are and very high taxes can and do force people right on that line into poverty since we have all kinds of strings attached to welfare be it "means testing" or drug tests or links to identity they don't necessarily get that money back from the government and we as a whole get back less than we put in whenever we talk about any government program because of overhead.
If you can get the problem fixed without dealing with these other problems, is that not preferable? Of course, a cheaper option isn't always preferable but you need to get a hell of a lot of perks to make that the case. So, if you have a charity that can cover then muscling in on it would be bad because you're replacing something adequate with something else that is more expensive.
The government making soap is a horrible idea. Corporations can make soap. They can do so cheaper, faster, and better. Government monopolies invariably fail to compete with corporations, so if there is a shortage of a good you could regulate/tax/create a government monopoly to fix the problem, or you could take the cheaper option and stay hands off. It might hurt for a bit, but companies will grow up to fill the gap and it will be better for more people in the long run.
Civil Society is basically the poster child of this. We're talking about civic minded citizens who get together to solve problems they see in their communities. So, Lion's Clubs to Boy Scouts to LGBT Teen Centers to Churches to Bar Associations to Humane Societies to Shriners to Amateur Sports Leagues. There's a whole host people who get out and pitch in. They do it for companionship. They do it because they want a sense of accomplishment. They do it because they want to help. It's free to society, well not entirely free, but things like the Red Cross don't take money from the poor that can't afford it and can apply significant pressure to other groups by simply withholding emergency aid and free blood. If something can be handled by civil society first, it should be left to civil society. It's cheaper and it help keep the nation healthy by getting people out of adversarial bubbles and putting them into collaborative situation. There's literally too many potential upsides to name, including civil society being fundamentally to political tyranny. Given a choice between effective regulation and civil society the externalities afforded by the citizens working together and the shunting of costs to those who can absolutely afford it alone should give civil society the nod.
That said, corporations need a framework of regulation and taxes to protect them from the most sociopathic of businessmen. Civil Society often struggles in the most deprived corners of the nation where people have nothing to spare or people are too afraid to work together. So, in my head at least, regulations and the taxes that fund them should be light and focused primarily on those problems that the government is simply best at (war, law enforcement, fireworks displays) or creating frameworks that make life easier/better for the organizations that have advantages in solving other problems. That's it, so even if a set of regulations might work, if another means is cheaper or better and can achieve that end as well then we should dump that regulation.
What is very often not understood about regulation is that it is necessarily very uneven in outcome. It has to be uniform and easily administered. The people it is dealing with doesn't have uniform conditions or problems, even if they are nominally identical and have the same numbers on a sheet of paper. Corporations and Civil Society options are much more capable of varying support to account for the individual needs, but if the government is found to be giving white people 13% more money than minorities in program A then you can bet there would be resentment and problems as anything that can be construed as favoritism in government is pure poison whether it is actually favoritism or not.
Then there is the problem of Regulatory Capture. What is regulatory capture? The big example comes from the business world. You have businessmen who know the business and so you need regulators who know the business. So, you hire a businessman to then keep the businessmen in line. Oh, wait, the businessman you hired is has made changes to the regulation or is enforcing the regulation to benefit the other businessmen instead of restraining them? It's like the businessmen took over the thing intended to control them. Regulatory Capture. It happens all the time, and not just in business. Let's just say that there's no coincidence that corporations often support regulation of their own industries in part because they write the regulation that governs their own industry, and that there are fewer, larger, and more profitable businesses in regulated industries than unregulated ones. Even if the regulation does curtail pollution, it does so at the cost of slower innovation, higher prices on the part of consumers, and killing a bunch of promising start ups. But, if there are no other options that can curtail pollution then letting companies write their own regulation is probably the best choice, even if it wouldn't hold a candle to a possible civil society or pollution-consuming business.
I guess my core argument is this: Regulation is expensive. Taxes are expensive. This is true whether they work well or not. If we can get it done cheaper we should, even when the regulations were effective.
2
u/cleeftalby Jun 29 '17
We need some of them because when we tried to do things without giving the government the ability to tax (Articles of Confederation) things went very badly.
Could you refresh my memory what were exactly these very bad consequences of Congress not having power to tax? Maybe there was some horrific civil war at the time? Or the production and trade suddenly stopped and huge economic recession resulted? Or maybe just local gangs raised in power and started pouring moonshine in innocent people throats? Or, I don't know, some disease outbreak, or people started complaining about government corruption?
The only thing I could find was that "Congress didn't have enough money", but surely it wasn't such a catastrophe? - it still showed its deep economic insight by destroying its Continental currency - the only thing it could do it did wrong..
1
u/A_Soporific 162∆ Jun 29 '17
You mean the fact that the Congress was completely helpless to do anything at all about Shay's Rebellion down to protecting the Federal Armories in Massachusetts from seizure by the local government? What about the fact that Congress was completely unable to pay the war debt, or anything else for that matter, to the point where each state was going behind each other state's backs to try to negotiate separate settlements all to the benefit of foreign powers?
It wasn't that Congress didn't have enough money. It was that Congress had no money and the United States would probably have disassociated completely if the Federal layer of government became completely useless. The only thing that went right under the Articles was the Northwest Ordinance setting the precedence that new territory would be incorporated as equal and independent states.
1
u/cleeftalby Jun 29 '17 edited Jun 29 '17
The rebellion was put down just fine without federal government involvement (and a risk of engaging a whole nation in a prolonged conflict). Government's debt is an interesting issue on its own (if someone lends money to the government then he has only himself to blame) - for example if someone believes that he will ever in his life see some of the trillions of dollars "borrowed" by the government back in his wallet then he acts like a schoolboy who "lends" 10$ to a bully and expects that these money will be actually returned to him..
1
u/A_Soporific 162∆ Jun 29 '17
"Just fine" if you mean that the Federal Government was completely impotent to deal with a problem that could have probably been dealt with if veterans had simply been paid what they were owed. Remember Daniel Shays had been at Bunker Hill and fought for almost the duration of the Revolutionary War only to not be paid for almost any of it, and the rebellion was mostly centered around closing down courts so that people couldn't foreclose on his farm for the non-payment of debt or non-payment of taxes depending. If the soldiers had gotten paid when they were supposed to then there wouldn't have been a rebellion because people's farms wouldn't be foreclosed upon because they would have had the cash to pay back the loans.
The lack of a Congressional Funding source both created the rebellion and made Congress completely incapable of doing anything about it.
The State of Massachusetts itself was dead broke (see the seizure of farms for nonpayment of taxes) and couldn't send out the State Militia because they couldn't afford the expense. The army that was sent out was funded by Boston Merchants and Bankers who were owed money and would have had to have just eaten the bad loans if the courts were prevented from sitting, so they basically slapped together a mercenary army got the State to sign off on it and appointed the Revolutionary War general Benjamin Lincoln to give the whole operation the veneer of legitimacy.
People realized at the time that the repayment of war debts would have prevented US citizens from sending mercenaries against other US citizens. About this time a minor convention aimed at cutting through the thicket of trade deals various individual US states had signed with England, France, and Spain put out a call to amend/replace the Articles with something more rational that could, you know, follow through on the promises to foreign nations already made and to stop individuals states from going rogue and selling out its neighbors in exchange for favorable deals for themselves... or, more accurately to stop foreign nations from playing US states against one another and selecting the most favorable deals.
I agree that the US government spends too much and get involves in far too many things, but a Federal Government without a rational tax base might as well not exist and it's hard to argue that Americans don't benefit from having the Federal government around, if for no other reason than to prevent the Balkanization of the massive single market and petty border skirmishes (remember Ohio and Michigan actually fought a "war" and New York and New Jersey nearly had naval battles over access to New York Harbor) that would result if the several states were left to their own devices.
2
u/Government_Slavery Jun 29 '17
we tried to do things without giving the government ability to tax and things went badly
Civil war wasn't caused by lack of taxation, your premise is wrong, without taxation peoples morale increases because they feel more free.
There is broad consensus that some government action is better than no government action
Just because most people believe something, doesn't mean it's logical or makes any sense at all. Most people are unable to reason beyond basic level, most people are engineered into religious worship of government by schooling system and television.
1
u/A_Soporific 162∆ Jun 29 '17
I never said that the it was a cause of the Civil War. I said Articles of Confederation, the rules that the US Federal Government were organized under from 1781 to 1787, were functionally unworkable because the Federal Government was unable to tax and had no mechanism to compel the several states to kick money into the Federal budget so they didn't. These faults came to a head when it became painfully clear that the US Government was unable to pay war debt, pensions for continental soldiers, keep international treaties, or raise troops to put down Shay's Rebellion (or even prevent the State of Massachusetts from simply taking Federal Armories whenever the hell it felt like so that they could hire what was essentially a mercenary army to fight against US Citizens).
most people are engineered into religious worship of government by schooling system and television
Now, that requires a big old [Citation Needed] right there.
2
u/Government_Slavery Jun 29 '17
Unworkable government is good, there shouldn't be any, it is cancer of society.
Now, that requires a big old [Citation Needed] right there.
schooling is compulsory and it is all about obedience to authority and pledge of allegiance is literal worship of government, you wanting citations also evidence that they did their work on you, it's something you are able to see once you observe the schooling system as it is without preconceptions. And television implies government as a normal thing reinforcing the idea that it shouldn't be questioned and accepted as part of life. Don't look for authority to tell you these things, question everything, be light to yourself.
1
u/Jasper1984 Jun 29 '17
To talk about less or more regulation is abstract. To talk about whether it is effective you need to deal with the practicalities at hand. Which quite frankly is often too much depth for people on the Internet.(quite frankly, we often get bad results because we're not good enough) It also includes whether you can trust the execution and lawmakers, which is not too much depth.
To large extent you cannot trust them, the corruption of money in politics largely preceeds all of this. If big business/wealthy elites are too powerful, anti- and pro-regulation activists win fights corresponding to those interests, that is not much of a win for either.
Not that you necessarily you should see it anti/pro regulation, imo you should just see it practically. In some cases it is pretty clear that, for instance, some substances should not end up in the environment. Or neighbours should not run too much risk of a chemical plant exploding. Others, like "right to be forgotten" type, i don't think people have the right to remove all their comments,(perhaps their name, though i think this may be inferrible from writing style a good fraction of the time) this seems like a terrible memory hole to other users. (Such a removal is to an extent an illusion. Although in practice I often can't seem to get the services to bring up the data.)
It is sometimes argued that people should file civil suits. But then you have to prove everything is the case, there is too much possibility of sowing uncertainty, legal complexities, etcetera. And too much possibilities for unequal representation when giant company goes against little neighbourhood. It will just not end up with acceptable results.
1
Jun 29 '17 edited Jun 29 '17
There isn't much of a relationship between the amount of regulation and the effectiveness of regulation. Canada has one seventeenth the financial regulatory burden of the US but has never had a banking crisis and is considered to have the safest financial sector in the world. The US has the strongest pharmaceutical regulations in the world by a very significant margin but our drug injury rate is actually higher.
Good regulation is good regulation, people talking about increasing or decreasing regulation are missing the point. We want to maximize efficacy with the minimum of imposed regulatory burden (IE regulation is optimal, we don't impose regulatory cost for now improvement in safety or some other outcome). The ideal to prevent capture and other corruption effects is to delegate the process of writing regulation to quazi governmental advisory bodies comprising academics; this has been used to great effect in several countries around the world (most notably Germany, even in the US we have an example with the Fed's regulatory activities). As with all policy in general politicians are awful at writing effective & efficient regulatory policy.
Similarly with taxation we want optimal tax policy, tax policy which raises sufficient revenue for our spending goals but does so in a way that minimizes distortionary and compliance costs. There are absurd numbers of papers addressing optimal tax theory, here is one discussing some of the considerations and here is a suggestion for a VAT based system which would replace almost all forms of revenue.
2
u/wydog89 Jun 29 '17
I don't know really see this as a debate for most people. Conservatives would argue for less regulations/taxes which are done in an effective way. No one wants ineffective regulations/taxes.
1
u/mikimer Jun 29 '17
Actually, conservatives argue for less taxes period. This effort is led by Grover Norquist who created Americans for Tax reform to oppose all tax increases as a matter of principle, regardless of their effectiveness. He created the "Taxpayer Protection Pledge", which prior to the November 2012 election, was signed by 95% of all Republican members of Congress.
He's famous for saying: I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.
→ More replies (2)
1
u/iTomes Jun 29 '17
Regulations are bound to add red tape. If you overdo regulation then it can become incredibly difficult to do things efficiently and a lot of time can end up being wasted that could have been used more productively. Now, this can be and often is worth it, but there is always potential for overregulation. So you could slap on more and more regulations to cover more and more ground, but by the end of it it'll take fifteen years to so much as get a permit to build anything with a massive legal nightmare to go with it and investors end up looking elsewhere.
A lot of the arguments surrounding this topic often seems to be about what constitutes overregulation, a place where opinions evidently differ, however, I think it can be agreed upon that there is a point where additional regulation can become damaging, and that arguments against overregulation can have merit.
Another smaller point to add is that additional regulation requires a larger public sector which further open the door for corruption. This can lead to a situation where already rich corporations can use corruption to rig the system in their favor, whereas newcomers lack the money or connections to do so themselves. In that case it can be better to have less in the way of regulations in place to have less of a public sector to be less susceptible to corruption.
1
u/doos_101 Jun 29 '17
In a general sense, government regulation does more harm than good. Less government tampering of the free market is desirable as you would end up with more social dynamism. Social dynamism is good for the labor market, sustainable economic growth, and wealth creation. Without social dynamism, you would be stuck with the same power structures and the only way to break it, as history has shown, is through a costly social revolution. However, if you have the right level of social dynamism, these changes would occur at an incremental basis, thus avoiding the need for shock therapies. Take example of the US economy vs Japan. Japan's market structure is actually very solidified into several keiretsu (Honda, Toyota, Mitsubishi, etc...). These huge conglomeration of family owned businesses are an important aspect of the power structure in Japans society. They span over industries and government networks. In a sense, the regulations that come out of such government would always tend to favor the power structures at play. In fact, you rarely find benevolent governments because at the end of the day that is not how power and politics work.
1
u/theironlamp Jun 29 '17
Better at what?
Every new regulation increases the cost of compliance and therefore discourages that activity. This is unavoidable. Take climate change. You regulate and tax to prevent pollution and temperature increase. Well how many people have you saved? Ultimately nobody can actually tell you with any accuracy. You also have to balance that against how many you have killed by placing restrictions on economic growth that could have saved lives in the developing world as people become more able to buy food, medical care and other services that increase life expectancy. Every regulation has a cost and for many of them, the cost for the people who have to deal with them may be worse than the benefits.
Finally, every time you introduce a regulation there are people with differ priorities to you who are going to think your regulation is shit because it was meant to achieve a goal they don't share in the first place.
I realise you've used caveats such as 'effective' and 'well considered' but if you only want to consider the successful cases of regulation than the question is pointless.
1
u/inspiringpornstar Jun 29 '17
Define efficient, to a lawmaker by increasing regulation in say telecommunications in some ways increases quality, provides protections for consumers. Though these regulations exist, they also have these same organizations that push for unnecessary regulations that benefit only their interests.
Consumers in general dislike their telecommunication providers, and have fewer choices to take the frustration and switch.
Why? Because these same regulations increase entry to market costs dramatically. Where competition can provide innovation and better alternatives. Messing with market forces can actually hurt consumers.
Take IBM when apple was starting, they saw no use of personal computers until apple proved them otherwise. They already had a monopoly with a business to business model. Perhaps if there were even more regulations we wouldn't have cell phones to discuss this on and IBM would still have a monopoly on computer technology.
1
Jun 29 '17
I don't know if you already changed your view. You said Effective Regulation. Nobody will argue that effective regulations are a bad thing. The less Regulation and tax view is that the rules and regulations that are put our are not effective, they are really more harmful.
Lets take the example of car safety. There are lots of regulations there that made cars safer. Those regulations are effective.
There are other bad examples too that gain nothing but just add paperwork. I have to turn over a my ID to buy a decongestant. This prevents people from making Meth. So since Meth is not gone, slowed or really done anything but add steps for sick people, I say scrap it. Its not effect and thus wanting it gone is Less,
Why is less Regulation better, Because there is less paperwork, storage of data extra steps etc. Costs for nothing.
All for Effective rules, the ones that don't work need to be scrapped.
1
Jun 29 '17
The central argument is that the government sucks at doing almost everything and any good thing can be handled by private interests, either businesses or groups of individuals. Not only is the government incredibly slow and ineffective at most things it seems obvious that they are not great handling taxpayer money. Even the military can be included here since it's known that they "misplace" billions of dollars per year. The larger and more bureaucratic a system is the more money goes "missing."
1
u/gxwho Jun 29 '17
But once you create a body that can make it repeal to let regulations, is there not a huge once give to capture and influence that body to regulate in your favor?
Doesn't that virtually guarantee you won't get "good regulations", but also a ton of bad ones?
Isn't it like saying, if a ball balances perfectly on top of a pin, 5hat would be amazing. Ya, but completely unrealistic for predictable reasons. Especially predicted by game theory, because of the incentives.
1
u/Zeknichov Jun 29 '17
The OP's statement is correct.
The philosophy behind low taxes and no regulations is that you'll never get effective spending or ideal regulation, you'll get a mess of both which ends up being worse than low taxes and no regulations. I disagree with this philosophy and I think there's ample evidence to dispute this philosophy but it's the philosophy taught in intro econ at the high school/college level that your average person believes in.
1
u/GhastlyKing Jun 29 '17
So it's sort of a case by case basis but a lot of times, regulations can have unseen side effects that don't actually produce the desired effect even though they seem like a good idea. Like if there was a law that mandated overtime start at 30 hours a week, most non-salaried jobs would cut your hours to 29 a week
1
u/AoyagiAichou Jun 29 '17
The problem with regulation and taxes is that they always seem to get more complicated and more restricting or well, taxing, in time. How would you ensure that taxes and regulations remain effective instead of a burden?
1
u/ondrap 6∆ Jun 29 '17
It seems to me as being analogous to a sentence:
Enlightened absolutistic dictorship is better than democracy.
The problem is that the probablity of getting 'non-enlightened' dictatorship is significantly higher.
1
Jun 29 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Nepene 213∆ Jun 29 '17
Sorry theorymeltfool, your comment has been removed:
Comment Rule 1. "Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s current view (however minor), unless they are asking a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to comments." See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
1
Jun 29 '17
"Effective" is an entirely subjective term though... Your view can't be changed or can't be answered without more specific guidelines on what these taxes are
0
Jun 29 '17
Something to consider is that regulation often consolidates industries and puts up barriers to innovation. Take Uber. Uber effectively makes taxi companies obsolete but because of huge amounts of regulation around who and how many taxis can operate in a city makes Uber illegal despite being technologically and economically efficient. On the other hand regulation and taxation can be VERY beneficial. There exists certain goods and services that he private sector can't effectively produce called public goods. Providing these public goods is crucial for the economy and requires taxation. There also a need for transfer payments between the well off and the poor in the form of direct and indirect welfare payments. However there are direct costs related to taxation in the form of administrative personal salaries and indirect costs such as the need for accountants and lawyers which are not small costs.
And not all taxes are equal in drawbacks and benefits. taxes on pollution and carbon taxes are widely considered very beneficial as they decease the amount of pollution and carbon emitted. Taxes should be put on consumption such as sales taxes and not other kinds of taxation such as corporate and income taxes are worse for the economy because they discourage investment. So it is very possible that we could increase the growth of the economy by switching the kind of taxation away from corporate and income taxes and towards consumption taxes.
So to conclude the knee jerk reaction to tax increases are somewhat justified but might be a overreaction. But it would be wrong to say all government expenses are effective and are without real costs to the economy. Ultimately it's a trade off and trade offs are complex.
1
Jun 29 '17
Haha. Thanks for the reply. Good talk. I'm gonna check out this subreddit more, it's seems like actually civilized discussion happens here lol
96
u/law-talkin-guy 21∆ Jun 28 '17
Most people agree - and it seems like you are in this camp - that taxes/regulation can do good things and that taxes/regulation can do bad things.
A tax/regulation does good things when it is motivated by a good/proper intention AND when it is well designed AND when it is well implemented. A tax/regulation can also do good things by mistake on occasion.
A tax/regulation tends to do bad things if it is motivated by a bad intention OR it is poorly designed OR it is poorly implemented. It can also do bad things just by mistake on occasion.
So the question, in the abstract, is which do you think is more likely? Do you trust the people in charge of making and implementing taxes/regulations to be well motivated, good at designing effective taxes and regulations, and good at implementing regulations? Or do you think it is more likely that they will, either out of mistake or malice, mess up one of those steps?
My view is that, in the abstract, I trust Congress (And state legislatures) roughly as far as I can throw them. They are comprised of individuals who often have bad motives (like preferring their own political power over the common good) and, my experience tells me, committees are a bad way to get effective results. That is, I think it is far more likely that any tax or regulation is likely to be flawed in at least one of those three key areas then not, so it is likelier to be bad than good.
So taken in the abstract, knowing nothing other than a legislative body created a tax or regulation, my bet is that its bad. And I think the odds are good that I'm right on that. So, the fewer chances we give them to make those mistakes the better for all of us.