Trump pledges to cut taxes and regulation 'massively'

[Person Man]

Republicans tend to cut the good regulations and do nothing about the useless red tape, so yeah, not feeling this one.

Also cutting rich people's top tax rate from 40% to 33% will create basically no jobs. That's not how economics works.

I have a feeling with Trump, there will still be less changes that take your from "Oh. I am sorry. You need to come back after filling these things out." to "Ok. Great here we go!" than "Thank goodness someone was looking out for us!" to "Oh my God! Why didn't anyone see that coming!?"

How GOP policy works in 2017:

"We could gut some of these meaningless red tape regulations in a way that makes sense, but what's the fun in that! Let's repeal the Americans With Disabilities Act and make it legal to shoot spotted owls instead, that'll REALLY piss those libtards off!"

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Regulation shouldn't exist.  I would say "if something is bad enough that it has to be regulated, it should be banned.  And, if something is worthwhile enough to be legal, it shouldn't be regulated".  Anything else just leads to inefficiencies in the market.

Tell me which falls into each category:

-Greenhouse emissions (no regulation, if they are harmful, the free market will take care of it)
-Workplace safety standards (fine, maybe some regulation necessary, but nothing excessive)
-Zoning regulations (Don't build the fertilizer factory next to the elementary school) (way too burdensome on business as presently constructed)
-Misleading advertisements (no regulation, unless it's an outright lie)
-FDA approval of food (no regulation)

The spirit of my post was not literal, but there are way too many things that are regulated to the point of making it difficult for business and individuals.  For example, I don't think there should be a such thing as "under the table work" because I don't think many, if any, jobs should have licensing requirements and I don't think there should be an income tax.

[Person Man]

Regulation shouldn't exist.  I would say "if something is bad enough that it has to be regulated, it should be banned.  And, if something is worthwhile enough to be legal, it shouldn't be regulated".  Anything else just leads to inefficiencies in the market.

Tell me which falls into each category:

-Greenhouse emissions (no regulation, if they are harmful, the free market will take care of it)
-Workplace safety standards (fine, maybe some regulation necessary, but nothing excessive)
-Zoning regulations (Don't build the fertilizer factory next to the elementary school) (way too burdensome on business as presently constructed)
-Misleading advertisements (no regulation, unless it's an outright lie)
-FDA approval of food (no regulation)

The spirit of my post was not literal, but there are way too many things that are regulated to the point of making it difficult for business and individuals.  For example, I don't think there should be a such thing as "under the table work" because I don't think many, if any, jobs should have licensing requirements and I don't think there should be an income tax.

You are OK seeing an unlicensed attorney or unlicensed doctor? I am open to see some regulations open up with people willing to try new things but how do we protect people who just want to know what they are getting? The entire idea of a "market" doesn't work unless people know what they are getting. Without regulations, you have no markets. Then again, we live in an age where there is no reality or is even right or wrong, just perceptions and states of mind. A "market" without regulation makes perfect sense from the man who is gaslighting the whole world.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

There is no such thing as a totally free market, outside of perfect competition, which only applies to businesses as simple as a hot dog stand. Everything else is at least slightly monopolistic, so I don't see what is so unpure about some regulation. Also, I'm assuming Extreme Republican has never heard of negative externalities.

And, there are massive amounts of regulations to open up a hot dog stand.  Kids have even been told they had to shut down their lemonade stands due to regulations.  I think we can all agree that the regulatory state is overblown (and, actually, disproportionately impacts the poor, by the way).

[Mr. Smith]

HP

Rarely are deregulation or tax cuts ever good things, even in areas where things could be bloated...and certainly not in this context.

[DrScholl]

There is no such thing as a totally free market, outside of perfect competition, which only applies to businesses as simple as a hot dog stand. Everything else is at least slightly monopolistic, so I don't see what is so unpure about some regulation. Also, I'm assuming Extreme Republican has never heard of negative externalities.

And, there are massive amounts of regulations to open up a hot dog stand.  Kids have even been told they had to shut down their lemonade stands due to regulations.  I think we can all agree that the regulatory state is overblown (and, actually, disproportionately impacts the poor, by the way).

Regulations are there to protect the consumer. Opening something like a hot dog stand requires safety measures that prevent customers from becoming ill (or from dying), which doesn't constitute pointless red tape.

[Person Man]

There is no such thing as a totally free market, outside of perfect competition, which only applies to businesses as simple as a hot dog stand. Everything else is at least slightly monopolistic, so I don't see what is so unpure about some regulation. Also, I'm assuming Extreme Republican has never heard of negative externalities.

And, there are massive amounts of regulations to open up a hot dog stand.  Kids have even been told they had to shut down their lemonade stands due to regulations.  I think we can all agree that the regulatory state is overblown (and, actually, disproportionately impacts the poor, by the way).

Regulations are there to protect the consumer. Opening something like a hot dog stand requires safety measures that prevent customers from becoming ill (or from dying), which doesn't constitute pointless red tape.

But think of the children! There are liberals under ER's bed!

[publicunofficial]

Again, I'll just say, that if there is any red tape that is actually proven to be worthless, I fully support its repeal. However, if it protects even one life or helps mitigate effects on the environment, I support it, unless a better solution comes around. I don't think that's an unreasonable position.

But think of the lemonade stands!

[mvd10]

Well I hope it will be actual tax reform instead of just plainly cutting the rates. The US really needs to move to territorial taxation and to cut the corporate income tax to something like 15-20% though. I'm not really enthusiastic about yuge income tax cuts for the wealthy. Just eliminate/limit deductions and loopholes and use the revenue to cut income tax rates revenue neutrally.

[politics_king]

You need to cut taxes on the middle class and poverty stricken members of our society than the wealthiest, because they can afford it, we have to let the rich/wealthy combat each other on over-pricing while the rest of us just want to make it through the week on the salary we have. We just want a comfortable and happy lifestyle, we don't' need or want the world. We just want security financially.

[dead0man]

You need to cut taxes on the middle class and poverty stricken members of our society than the wealthiest, because they can afford it, we have to let the rich/wealthy combat each other on over-pricing while the rest of us just want to make it through the week on the salary we have. We just want a comfortable and happy lifestyle, we don't' need or want the world. We just want security financially.

which taxes would you cut on poverty stricken people?

[politics_king]

You need to cut taxes on the middle class and poverty stricken members of our society than the wealthiest, because they can afford it, we have to let the rich/wealthy combat each other on over-pricing while the rest of us just want to make it through the week on the salary we have. We just want a comfortable and happy lifestyle, we don't' need or want the world. We just want security financially.

which taxes would you cut on poverty stricken people?

Social Security and Medicaid. The rest is subjective by the State, I live in California so all of us pay income tax which has led to a bunch of people moving to Nevada or Arizona. I personally think a "Fair Tax" is the best way to solve it, because it's based on what you spend though that seems to not be popular with anyone.

[KingSweden]

Well I hope it will be actual tax reform instead of just plainly cutting the rates. The US really needs to move to territorial taxation and to cut the corporate income tax to something like 15-20% though. I'm not really enthusiastic about yuge income tax cuts for the wealthy. Just eliminate/limit deductions and loopholes and use the revenue to cut income tax rates revenue neutrally.

To be fair, the GOP does seem to be talking about corporate tax reform being the priority, though I have a sense it'll just turn into the usual marginal rate deductions for the wealthy like usual

[mvd10]

Well I hope it will be actual tax reform instead of just plainly cutting the rates. The US really needs to move to territorial taxation and to cut the corporate income tax to something like 15-20% though. I'm not really enthusiastic about yuge income tax cuts for the wealthy. Just eliminate/limit deductions and loopholes and use the revenue to cut income tax rates revenue neutrally.

To be fair, the GOP does seem to be talking about corporate tax reform being the priority, though I have a sense it'll just turn into the usual marginal rate deductions for the wealthy like usual

It probably will be the same with entitlement reform. First they will talk a bit about reforming social security or medicare but in the end they will just make cuts to programs that only benefit the poor (Democrats/non-voters) instead of reforming the programs that are actually driving the debt.

[Badger]

Judging from his nominee for FCC Chair, maintaining net neutrality appears to be among the "wasteful regulations" he seeks to gut. Not a good sign.

[politics_king]

Judging from his nominee for FCC Chair, maintaining net neutrality appears to be among the "wasteful regulations" he seeks to gut. Not a good sign.

The biggest red-flag should be Trump saying at the CIA press conference that "We're at war with the media". It's why the media is hitting so hard back at him, Obama was never a fan of the White House media either. The First Amendment is our most important one.

[Ljube]

Judging from his nominee for FCC Chair, maintaining net neutrality appears to be among the "wasteful regulations" he seeks to gut. Not a good sign.

The biggest red-flag should be Trump saying at the CIA press conference that "We're at war with the media". It's why the media is hitting so hard back at him, Obama was never a fan of the White House media either. The First Amendment is our most important one.

The media are so dishonest nobody trusts them anymore. People are sick and tired of fake news.

[Mr. Smith]

Judging from his nominee for FCC Chair, maintaining net neutrality appears to be among the "wasteful regulations" he seeks to gut. Not a good sign.

The biggest red-flag should be Trump saying at the CIA press conference that "We're at war with the media". It's why the media is hitting so hard back at him, Obama was never a fan of the White House media either. The First Amendment is our most important one.

The media are so dishonest nobody trusts them anymore. People are sick and tired of fake news.

Fake news got your party into the White House.

[IceAgeComing]

You need to cut taxes on the middle class and poverty stricken members of our society than the wealthiest, because they can afford it, we have to let the rich/wealthy combat each other on over-pricing while the rest of us just want to make it through the week on the salary we have. We just want a comfortable and happy lifestyle, we don't' need or want the world. We just want security financially.

which taxes would you cut on poverty stricken people?

Social Security and Medicaid. The rest is subjective by the State, I live in California so all of us pay income tax which has led to a bunch of people moving to Nevada or Arizona. I personally think a "Fair Tax" is the best way to solve it, because it's based on what you spend though that seems to not be popular with anyone.

sales tax is regressive though; where a national version of that exists (or VAT, basically the same) the poor pay proportionally more of their money in tax than the rich do.

[Mr. Reactionary]

You are OK seeing an unlicensed attorney or unlicensed doctor?

TBF all that it takes to become a licensed attorney is money, the ability to follow simple directions during the application process, scoring ok on a trivia quiz, and more money. My college roommate who graduated with a theater degree knows more SCOTUS case law than half the lawyers I work with.

[RINO Tom]

Just out of curiosity, is anything that ends up affecting the poor more than the rich - by definition - "regressive," or does it have to be something that is DESIGNED to affect the poor more than the rich?  For example, if we set up things to be "progressively taxed" in theory but the actions and buying habits of the poor (e.g., they buy more things that are, for whatever reason, taxed at a higher rate) overcome this fact and lead to them having a higher tax burden than initially intended, is that inherently regressive in the minds of the people who oppose such things?

Again, genuinely curious.

[RINO Tom]

Just out of curiosity, is anything that ends up affecting the poor more than the rich - by definition - "regressive," or does it have to be something that is DESIGNED to affect the poor more than the rich?  For example, if we set up things to be "progressively taxed" in theory but the actions and buying habits of the poor (e.g., they buy more things that are, for whatever reason, taxed at a higher rate) overcome this fact and lead to them having a higher tax burden than initially intended, is that inherently regressive in the minds of the people who oppose such things?

Again, genuinely curious.

First of all, regressive is an economic term, not just a partisan term. It has an actual meaning out of campaign rhetoric, and yes, things not designed to be regressive can become regressive. It's called regressive because the percent tax "regresses," or decreases, as a person makes more income. Payroll taxes, for instance.

Thank you, this is what I was asking.

[Bojack Horseman]

This is fiscal conservatism at its finest. Republicans bitch and moan as nausem about the deficit and national debt until they get elected. Once that happens, deficits and debt don't matter anymore, and they embark on a GOP spending spree complete with tax cuts for the rich. But growth is supposed to balance the budget when we do it this time even though it's exploded the deficit and national debt the last several times we've tried.

[Devout Centrist]

This is fiscal conservatism at its finest. Republicans bitch and moan as nausem about the deficit and national debt until they get elected. Once that happens, deficits and debt don't matter anymore, and they embark on a GOP spending spree complete with tax cuts for the rich. But growth is supposed to balance the budget when we do it this time even though it's exploded the deficit and national debt the last several times we've tried.

What is supposed to happen:

Recession hits: Taxes are cut, spending increased to stimulate economy

Recession fades: Increase taxes a bit, decrease spending

Good economy: Raise taxes back to normal, spending back to normal to pay all accumulated debt

---

What actually happens:

During a slight downturn in the economy, like in 2001/2002, Republican cut taxes way in excess of what would be need to make up the recession, and then proceed to declare a useless war, ballooning the budget. Then, when a larger recession hits due to deregulation of financial industries and corruption, they blame the next Democratic President, who is forced to increase spending and balloon the debt again, when it was completely their own fault.

You're also forgetting the extended interest rate cut and the housing policies of every president since Carter.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

This is fiscal conservatism at its finest. Republicans bitch and moan as nausem about the deficit and national debt until they get elected. Once that happens, deficits and debt don't matter anymore, and they embark on a GOP spending spree complete with tax cuts for the rich. But growth is supposed to balance the budget when we do it this time even though it's exploded the deficit and national debt the last several times we've tried.

What is supposed to happen:

Recession hits: Taxes are cut, spending increased to stimulate economy

Recession fades: Increase taxes a bit, decrease spending

Good economy: Raise taxes back to normal, spending back to normal to pay all accumulated debt

---

What actually happens:

During a slight downturn in the economy, like in 2001/2002, Republican cut taxes way in excess of what would be need to make up the recession, and then proceed to declare a useless war, ballooning the budget. Then, when a larger recession hits due to deregulation of financial industries and corruption, they blame the next Democratic President, who is forced to increase spending and balloon the debt again, when it was completely their own fault.

Or just cut both taxes and regulation about 90%+.  The nice thing about capitalism is that it is self-regulating and doesn't need to be interfered with by the government.