The constant need for special waivers is symptomatic of poorly written public policy. It's a signal that the cost of compliance is unreasonably high; the benefits are hard to measure; and either legislators or regulators have failed to do their homework.
Some faces may change in the top-heavy, bloated bureaucracy of Washington and all the state governments, but the bureaucracy will remain intact.
The Grammar Curmudgeon
Tax complexity itself is a kind of tax.
It’s a battle in which the Wall Street lobbying and public-relations machine will have a decisive advantage…. With the regulators, you don’t have to win. You just have to gum them up. And that is exactly what Wall Street has done.
The tax code's complexity adds enormous costs to families and businesses across the country and takes nothing short of an army of federal bureaucrats to enforce.
The basic architecture of Dodd-Frank makes sense. At the same time, as a number of regulators and legislators have observed, the act was a complex effort that produced thousands of pages of rules.
Every regulation requires two more regulations to deal with the unintended consequences.
The U. S. Code of Federal Regulations is over 170 thousand ages long.
The hard part that I didn't like about recruiting in college was, there was so many regulations. So many rules. It was so many layers to it in the recruiting that I just got fed up with it.
I ... can sniff out a bureaucracy when I see it coming [in new legislation.]
Roy Hill had to achieve more than 4,000 approvals, permits, and licences and more again for construction. The delays and costs of this were not only humungous and waste of human resources but did nothing to assist productivity.
While legislation obviously is political, we now have allowed regulation to become politicized, which we believe will likely lead to some bad outcomes.
The big producer is going to figure out how to deal with whatever the rules are, but the little guy who is running a few hundred units or maybe feeding 1,500 cattle a year, how will they ever comply with these requirements?
Visit USA.gov and you'll find thousands of directorates, agencies, boards, offices, and services replete with overlapping responsibilities, ancient priorities, and divided accountability.
There is no question that the federal government sometimes overdoes it in issuing rules and regulations.
The sum of all the current regulations presents ever increasing hurdles.
Dodd-Frank is 2,000 pages long. It covers thousands of rules, regulations, interpretations and things like that.
Developing countries often have hypertrophied bureaucracies, requiring businesses to deal with enormous amounts of red tape.
Federal rules and regulations too often become seemingly insurmountable obstacles to simple changes that can have a positive impact.
You don't make a system more effective by increasing the number of regulators.
From our perspective, just narrowly from the financial sector and from our institution, there's nothing good about Brexit.
There's been so much corruption and so much cronyism in the taxi industry and so much regulatory capture, that if you ask for permission upfront for something that's already legal, you'll never get it.
We lived by very complex import and export policies, a very complex industrial licensing regime. Very few people could get licences, which were required right from manufacturing a pin to manufacturing a car, and generally went to people who found favour with the government.
When I travel around the country, I see great companies with new ideas and a can-do attitude. But too often they are in hand-to-hand and pen-to-paper combat with officialdom.
If we overregulate, over control, impose too many burdens and too much bureaucracy - or if we do it across the board, without taking into account the differences among businesses and their relative impact on society - that could make people risk-averse and dampen the entrepreneurial spirit.
