Unaddressed above is the difference between a targeted tariff and a blanket one, as well as the cronyism and corruption that rises from those seeking exceptions to tariffs.
I'll also note that while *some* compliance/regulation may be an issue, there's also the point to be made that the GOP has for decades focused on making the government work less efficiently and effectively as part of their "starve the beast" strategy to reduce the scope of government. It's an ugly cycle: cut funds for X agency/department/etc..., point to how ineffective X is in doing their jobs, then cut more.
The fact is that if you want things to work well, you often need to fund them well - the IRS being a very good example, especially with the "you must fax this document to us" anecdote from the article. The increased funding during the Biden admin has a lot of updates to systems planned to make for more modern and - for lack of a better word - enjoyable experiences.
This is of course a problem for those that don't want things to work well in the government: hence the fear mongering about audits, and the attacks on free tax filing - 'cause of course why have a free system when H&R Block/Intuit/etc... can make massive profits instead?
Unfortunately, I don't think the discussion in public will have much nuance: it will be simply "regulations are bad", not "this particular regulation is excessive and should be reformed, while that one doesn't go far enough".
Just when I thought the nanny state could not produce any more surprises, this came in my email.
"As stated on the attached form, pursuant to regulations contained in the Housing for Older Persons Act of (HOPA) of 1995, this community is required to maintain age-verification records for each residence. The HOA is required to conduct periodic surveys to validate that the community complies with the HOPA 80% Occupancy requirement. As this is based on Occupancy, all owner/occupants, to include lessees, are required to complete the form. If the HOA does not have a copy of your lease on file, you will be required to provide a copy."
I'd wager that was put in by those that wanted to ensure that age-restricted communities/properties didn't choose to rent their units to those under the minimum age, e.g. 55. (Addendum: if anything, the HOPA act is the only reason why such age-restricted communities may exist - as otherwise they would violate age discrimination laws)
Summary per Wikipedia:
"This law states that it is legal for communities to market themselves as "55+"or "age-restricted" provided they maintain that 80 percent of the occupied units are occupied by at least one person who is 55 years of age or older. However, if the number of people age 55+ in a given community falls below the 80 percent threshold, the community could lose its age-restricted status (and loss of such status would be permanent).
Most 55+ age-restricted active adult communities will place an age-minimum on the residents. In most active adult communities, no one under the age of 19 may reside in the community unless granted an exemption (or, if the community has designated "family units", resides within those areas). However, at a community's discretion, the age-minimum may be higher or lower. Furthermore, most communities stipulate that if anyone under the age of 55 resides in their community, they must live in a household where at least one occupant is 55 or older. Nearly all age-restricted and active adult communities allow people under the age minimum, such as grandchildren, to visit and stay on a limited basis. Most age-restricted communities have covenants that allow people under the age-minimum to reside temporarily in the community for a period of time ranging from two weeks to 90 days per year (varies by community)."
Text of section 2 of the act:
"Section 2, defining "housing for older persons", amends Section 807(b)(2)(C) of the Fair Housing Act,[5] as that being
intended and operated for occupancy by persons 55 years of age or older, and--
(i) at least 80 percent of the occupied units are occupied by at least one person who is 55 years of age or older
(ii) the housing facility or community publishes and adheres to policies and procedures that demonstrate the intent required under this subparagraph; and
(iii) the housing facility or community complies with rules issued by the Secretary for verification of occupancy, which shall--
(I) provide for verification by reliable surveys and affidavits; and
(II) include examples of the types of policies and procedures relevant to a determination of compliance with the requirement of clause (ii). Such surveys and affidavits shall be admissible in administrative and judicial proceedings for the purposes of such verification.
I'm sure you are correct. I suppose HOPA just legalizes age discrimination in housing for grumpy old farts so long is there is no racial discrimination. My subdivision is very large. On my street there are five black homeowners and two Korean homeowners and one queer and one lesbian couple. There are a few adult children and grandchildren.
I just wonder why it is necessary to have the Fed's permission for freedom of association when there are laws against racial discrimination in housing. The rules are pretty lax within the framework of 80% older people.
"Americans have the highest standard of living in the developed world." Not really. But maybe the writer has a higher income than ordinary people so he doesn't feel the pain. I know when I was younger we had the highest standard of living but now, nah. If I recall correctly, the Scandinavian countries' citizens have the highest standard of living.
I have recently learned of a number of US manufactured goods that implemented price increases to levels of imports. So if a washing machine is made here you are technically going to pay a tariff on that as well. 😡
I have not yet argued this point. I always believe federal statistics - especially those posted on an imitation PBS website. Such statistics are always unfailingly beyond reproach.
Unaddressed above is the difference between a targeted tariff and a blanket one, as well as the cronyism and corruption that rises from those seeking exceptions to tariffs.
I'll also note that while *some* compliance/regulation may be an issue, there's also the point to be made that the GOP has for decades focused on making the government work less efficiently and effectively as part of their "starve the beast" strategy to reduce the scope of government. It's an ugly cycle: cut funds for X agency/department/etc..., point to how ineffective X is in doing their jobs, then cut more.
The fact is that if you want things to work well, you often need to fund them well - the IRS being a very good example, especially with the "you must fax this document to us" anecdote from the article. The increased funding during the Biden admin has a lot of updates to systems planned to make for more modern and - for lack of a better word - enjoyable experiences.
This is of course a problem for those that don't want things to work well in the government: hence the fear mongering about audits, and the attacks on free tax filing - 'cause of course why have a free system when H&R Block/Intuit/etc... can make massive profits instead?
Unfortunately, I don't think the discussion in public will have much nuance: it will be simply "regulations are bad", not "this particular regulation is excessive and should be reformed, while that one doesn't go far enough".
Great run down. Thanks
Just when I thought the nanny state could not produce any more surprises, this came in my email.
"As stated on the attached form, pursuant to regulations contained in the Housing for Older Persons Act of (HOPA) of 1995, this community is required to maintain age-verification records for each residence. The HOA is required to conduct periodic surveys to validate that the community complies with the HOPA 80% Occupancy requirement. As this is based on Occupancy, all owner/occupants, to include lessees, are required to complete the form. If the HOA does not have a copy of your lease on file, you will be required to provide a copy."
I'd wager that was put in by those that wanted to ensure that age-restricted communities/properties didn't choose to rent their units to those under the minimum age, e.g. 55. (Addendum: if anything, the HOPA act is the only reason why such age-restricted communities may exist - as otherwise they would violate age discrimination laws)
Summary per Wikipedia:
"This law states that it is legal for communities to market themselves as "55+"or "age-restricted" provided they maintain that 80 percent of the occupied units are occupied by at least one person who is 55 years of age or older. However, if the number of people age 55+ in a given community falls below the 80 percent threshold, the community could lose its age-restricted status (and loss of such status would be permanent).
Most 55+ age-restricted active adult communities will place an age-minimum on the residents. In most active adult communities, no one under the age of 19 may reside in the community unless granted an exemption (or, if the community has designated "family units", resides within those areas). However, at a community's discretion, the age-minimum may be higher or lower. Furthermore, most communities stipulate that if anyone under the age of 55 resides in their community, they must live in a household where at least one occupant is 55 or older. Nearly all age-restricted and active adult communities allow people under the age minimum, such as grandchildren, to visit and stay on a limited basis. Most age-restricted communities have covenants that allow people under the age-minimum to reside temporarily in the community for a period of time ranging from two weeks to 90 days per year (varies by community)."
Text of section 2 of the act:
"Section 2, defining "housing for older persons", amends Section 807(b)(2)(C) of the Fair Housing Act,[5] as that being
intended and operated for occupancy by persons 55 years of age or older, and--
(i) at least 80 percent of the occupied units are occupied by at least one person who is 55 years of age or older
(ii) the housing facility or community publishes and adheres to policies and procedures that demonstrate the intent required under this subparagraph; and
(iii) the housing facility or community complies with rules issued by the Secretary for verification of occupancy, which shall--
(I) provide for verification by reliable surveys and affidavits; and
(II) include examples of the types of policies and procedures relevant to a determination of compliance with the requirement of clause (ii). Such surveys and affidavits shall be admissible in administrative and judicial proceedings for the purposes of such verification.
— Housing for Older Persons Act § 2."
I'm sure you are correct. I suppose HOPA just legalizes age discrimination in housing for grumpy old farts so long is there is no racial discrimination. My subdivision is very large. On my street there are five black homeowners and two Korean homeowners and one queer and one lesbian couple. There are a few adult children and grandchildren.
I just wonder why it is necessary to have the Fed's permission for freedom of association when there are laws against racial discrimination in housing. The rules are pretty lax within the framework of 80% older people.
I don't think race has anything to do with it: it's solely about legalizing age discrimination.
Not going to get into a discussion about “free association” when it comes to housing - ‘cause really there's no discussion to be had.
"Americans have the highest standard of living in the developed world." Not really. But maybe the writer has a higher income than ordinary people so he doesn't feel the pain. I know when I was younger we had the highest standard of living but now, nah. If I recall correctly, the Scandinavian countries' citizens have the highest standard of living.
The quote is “Americans have the highest standard of living in the developed world, for a country our size”. Scandinavian countries are not our size.
Thank you .... I missed that.
I have recently learned of a number of US manufactured goods that implemented price increases to levels of imports. So if a washing machine is made here you are technically going to pay a tariff on that as well. 😡
It's not a tariff: it's a protected profit/revenue for the US manufacturer.
The result is that regardless - you pay more.
Where did you "learn" this?
For me - BLS data, as charted by Justin Wolfers:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GXoHb5CbUAEa1EB?format=jpg&name=medium
I have not yet argued this point. I always believe federal statistics - especially those posted on an imitation PBS website. Such statistics are always unfailingly beyond reproach.
That's from Twitter, not PBS: it's just a direct link to the image file.
He was in an argument with someone, I'm not stating you made any argument - it was just one with a useful post-tariff price reduction.
But if you prefer the NY Times: https://archive.is/08Bo5