Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Some anti-reg people fit that definition. Some don't.
|
I've yet to meet anyone who professes to be anti-reg who isn't completely full of shit and/or totally ignorant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I'm leery of regs and laws designed to change behavior by incentives. A good example of a silly law that ought to be banished is the ACA tax on tanning beds. In theory, this is great. We're all against skin cancer. But these are largely cash businesses. You've just pushed an entire industry into more robust tax evasion (many were already engaged in it, no doubt). Somewhere, a revenue agent is poring over the books of a tanning salon, wasting his time to collect $5,000.00 in taxes on under-reported income and fines when he'd be doing much more for the treasury by chasing foreign bank accounts.
|
I think you overstate your knowledge of the tanning bed business based on what you
think is true. I get my head lasered and the place that does it shares space with a tanning salon. I've been there many many times and I have never seen anyone pay with cash. But, whatever. I don't really care.
If you think a tax assessment levied on tanning beds with the aim of offsetting the costs all other insured people have to pay because certain dumbasses don't give a shit about clear health risks are a waste of time because some tanning salons cheat, I'm not sure how you think
any tax stick-incentives work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
And how much easier would land development be if you didn't have five different fed, state, and municipal agencies assessing your project. It's welfare for lawyers and ex-politicos now "consulting."
|
I'm sure it would be much easier. But I'd rather live in a place where it is difficult to build shit that isn't up to code.*
Your welfare comment is just stupid.
TM
*Sounds like you're advocating for all-encompassing federal building standards enforced by big government for efficiency sake. But that's unpossible.