Regulation

Discussion in 'Politics' started by g5000, Oct 6, 2017.

  1. OldLady
    Offline

    OldLady Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2015
    Messages:
    22,718
    Thanks Received:
    4,263
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +17,627
    Who SHOULD be setting exemptions, credits and deductions? Or are you saying there shouldn't be any? Are you proposing a flat tax?

    I agree with you that cuts in regs and the budget need to be done by the folks who really know the programs.

    I also appreciate you taking the time to explain this stuff.
     
  2. OldLady
    Offline

    OldLady Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2015
    Messages:
    22,718
    Thanks Received:
    4,263
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +17,627
    As long as we have really poor folks, we HAVE to invest in a healthy start for the kids or it will just perpetuate itself. That's not saying we don't take a long look at entitlements and generations of families dependent on welfare. I have a feeling it is more the difficulty moving out of poverty than the welfare benefits, to be honest, though.
     
  3. g5000
    Offline

    g5000 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2011
    Messages:
    66,749
    Thanks Received:
    10,892
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +32,367
    I am saying we should not have any exemptions, credits, or deductions.

    A flat tax has nothing to do with exemptions, credits, or deductions. Since a flat tax is an income tax, it can still be thoroughly corrupted by exemptions, credits, and deductions, too.

    I actually favor the Fair Tax. However, no matter what tax scheme you have, it can be corrupted by exemptions, etc. That is why we MUST address the disease first.

    And that particular disease when it comes to taxes is exemptions, credits, and deductions.

    Kill tax exemptions, deductions, and credits, and we can have much lower tax rates. And the playing field would be level. People earning identical incomes would pay identical taxes.

    Our current system is insane. Entities making the same incomes are paying radically different taxes. Both corporate and individual.

    That's government social engineering and it is an outrage.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  4. g5000
    Offline

    g5000 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2011
    Messages:
    66,749
    Thanks Received:
    10,892
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +32,367
    Where has it worked, ever?
     
  5. g5000
    Offline

    g5000 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2011
    Messages:
    66,749
    Thanks Received:
    10,892
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +32,367
    How to deal with poverty is an entirely different topic.

    And the government has completely screwed that up, too.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. g5000
    Offline

    g5000 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2011
    Messages:
    66,749
    Thanks Received:
    10,892
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +32,367
    Yes, most regulations should be handled at the state level. The federal government attempts to instill a one-size-fits-all scheme on a huge geographical area.

    It's crazy.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  7. bendog
    Offline

    bendog Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2013
    Messages:
    21,649
    Thanks Received:
    2,274
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Dog House in back yard
    Ratings:
    +7,939
    The conservative response to Dodd Frank is to essentially increase the amount of capital that must be held against risk (or loans). Two problems with this. 1) what kind of capital? We had banks insuring CDO with more loans which were themselves overvalued. 2) Banking institutions took people's money that was deposited into bank or investment accounts, and then used that money to invest in the Bank Institution's own name ... all legal because the depositor accounts were supposedly protected by other investments the Banking Institution held ... which turned out to be more CDO or swaps that were also overvalued.

    SO, any solution that is based upon any self-regulation of a market will not work. In theory, we could legally mandate a banking institution hold cold hard cash (or Treasuries) of some amount sufficient to capitalize the risk of the banking institutions' investments. The problem is .. who sets the amount.

    And I'm not sure I buy a concept of regulatory transaction costs being a driver in concentration of wealth. But thanks for the thread, and I'm outta here.
     
  8. g5000
    Offline

    g5000 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2011
    Messages:
    66,749
    Thanks Received:
    10,892
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +32,367
    Bingo.

    What kind of capital. And how much.

    That's the financial industry's regulatory battleground right there.
     
  9. g5000
    Offline

    g5000 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2011
    Messages:
    66,749
    Thanks Received:
    10,892
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +32,367
    Here's a funny thing.

    Credit default swaps do not require an insurable interest to this day.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  10. g5000
    Offline

    g5000 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2011
    Messages:
    66,749
    Thanks Received:
    10,892
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +32,367
    Precisely the sort of thing the Glass-Steagall Act was intended to stop.
     

Share This Page