What red tape would you get rid of?
Discussion
You hear politicians regularly say they will slash red tape/bureaucracy. But a lot of it seems beneficial, if annoying.
What specific regulations would you abolish?
Not things like speeding laws - I'm wondering about regulations that hinder business/government and have no significant benefit.
What specific regulations would you abolish?
Not things like speeding laws - I'm wondering about regulations that hinder business/government and have no significant benefit.
"Red Tape", as you know, is a derogatory term for "regulations". What you mean to say is, what regulations would you like to see abolished?
Of course, most regulations are in place to ensure we aren't exploited, injured or killed by businesses that would be very keen to operate in a much freer environment.
Go back to some earlier epochs in history and see how people got on in eras where there was little of no legal protection for consumers etc.
Of course, most regulations are in place to ensure we aren't exploited, injured or killed by businesses that would be very keen to operate in a much freer environment.
Go back to some earlier epochs in history and see how people got on in eras where there was little of no legal protection for consumers etc.
Eric Mc said:
"Red Tape", as you know, is a derogatory term for "regulations". What you mean to say is, what regulations would you like to see abolished?
Of course, most regulations are in place to ensure we aren't exploited, injured or killed by businesses that would be very keen to operate in a much freer environment.
Go back to some earlier epochs in history and see how people got on in eras where there was little of no legal protection for consumers etc.
There must be some regulations that are no longer relevant though or layers of regulations on top of other regulations that could be streamlined or removed for everyone’s benefit? Of course, most regulations are in place to ensure we aren't exploited, injured or killed by businesses that would be very keen to operate in a much freer environment.
Go back to some earlier epochs in history and see how people got on in eras where there was little of no legal protection for consumers etc.
Airports and particularly security are full of these rules now and some are undoubtedly worth keeping but loads have crept in that are making all our lives a bit less enjoyable and perhaps don’t serve any, or more accurately enough purpose any more.
For example the other day when going through security in uniform, a first class cutlery knife was discovered in my flight bag and the knife had to be measured to see if I could keep it. My colleague asked security what I was going to do with the knife and the man in security said that I might use it to kill her (the first officer) and take over the aircraft.
She politely pointed out that I was already in charge of the aircraft and was sitting in front of all the controls plus we have a huge axe in the flight deck already.
Yes everyone is just doing their job but many of these regulations are pointless and actually likely making people’s lives and jobs harder which is decreasing safety and not improving it.
El stovey said:
Eric Mc said:
"Red Tape", as you know, is a derogatory term for "regulations". What you mean to say is, what regulations would you like to see abolished?
Of course, most regulations are in place to ensure we aren't exploited, injured or killed by businesses that would be very keen to operate in a much freer environment.
Go back to some earlier epochs in history and see how people got on in eras where there was little of no legal protection for consumers etc.
There must be some regulations that are no longer relevant though or layers of regulations on top of other regulations that could be streamlined or removed for everyone’s benefit? Of course, most regulations are in place to ensure we aren't exploited, injured or killed by businesses that would be very keen to operate in a much freer environment.
Go back to some earlier epochs in history and see how people got on in eras where there was little of no legal protection for consumers etc.
Airports and particularly security are full of these rules now and some are undoubtedly worth keeping but loads have crept in that are making all our lives a bit less enjoyable and perhaps don’t serve any, or more accurately enough purpose any more.
For example the other day when going through security in uniform, a first class cutlery knife was discovered in my flight bag and the knife had to be measured to see if I could keep it. My colleague asked security what I was going to do with the knife and the man in security said that I might use it to kill her (the first officer) and take over the aircraft.
She politely pointed out that I was already in charge of the aircraft and was sitting in front of all the controls plus we have a huge axe in the flight deck already.
Yes everyone is just doing their job but many of these regulations are pointless and actually likely making people’s lives and jobs harder which is decreasing safety and not improving it.
In this case the rule was to protect the public against their plane being hijacked, while the fact there is a rule in place means the security guard doesn't have to make a personal judgment about either your character or the capabilities of the knife, protecting him from prosecution if all goes horribly wrong and you take all your passengers to Cuba.
boyse7en said:
Red tape is there to protect (usually) both the users of a product or service and the employees of the company.
In this case the rule was to protect the public against their plane being hijacked, while the fact there is a rule in place means the security guard doesn't have to make a personal judgment about either your character or the capabilities of the knife, protecting him from prosecution if all goes horribly wrong and you take all your passengers to Cuba.
But the security personnel did have to make a judgement, they had to measure the cutting section of the cutlery knife and decide if it was ok.In this case the rule was to protect the public against their plane being hijacked, while the fact there is a rule in place means the security guard doesn't have to make a personal judgment about either your character or the capabilities of the knife, protecting him from prosecution if all goes horribly wrong and you take all your passengers to Cuba.
The knife would have zero impact in that suggested possible outcome above.
If I wanted to hijack the plane by killing the first officer I could use the axe or my pen or club them with my iPad or loads of other objects. The fact that I’m sitting in front of the controls means I can make the aircraft unable to fly in seconds, even with the other pilot sitting there and ten security guards behind me. I could even tell them what I was going to do and they’d not be able to stop me.
The rule and many (not all) similar are therefore pointless theatre from a safety point of view and likely ultimately makes the environment less safe (for some people) due to the perceived hassle everywhere.
Although my example likely doesn’t affect many people, the point of the thread is, I think, that not all rules are serving a purpose any more and some might not only be inappropriate now but might even be negative for those they’re were originally designed to help.
Eric Mc said:
"Red Tape", as you know, is a derogatory term for "regulations". What you mean to say is, what regulations would you like to see abolished?
Of course, most regulations are in place to ensure we aren't exploited, injured or killed by businesses that would be very keen to operate in a much freer environment.
Go back to some earlier epochs in history and see how people got on in eras where there was little of no legal protection for consumers etc.
As an accountant....come on Eric...bet you'd love to see AML stuff wound back down Of course, most regulations are in place to ensure we aren't exploited, injured or killed by businesses that would be very keen to operate in a much freer environment.
Go back to some earlier epochs in history and see how people got on in eras where there was little of no legal protection for consumers etc.
10 years ago (ish) it was a quick box tick for a passport and utility bill, now it's page after page of answering questions and assessing risk and to be sure, still, sticking it through veriphy or similar as the sanction list is a million pages..all pissing around to check 'Bob', an NHS lifer, now a pensioner with some savings paying over the allowance, who you've known your entire life, family friend, but in case your governing body pops in, you need to have an MI6 dossier in place...I'm not going to lie, i hate it all.
(yes I know it's there to protect, doesn't mean I don't like it)
Venisonpie said:
Public sector procurement regulations prohibit best value being achieved by bodies subject to it. They could be revised very quickly and would meet the flavour of the current administration and significantly less mad than their economic policy.
Indeed. PCR2015 has resulted in massive salaries increases for Procurement Managers and Procurement Lawyers. dmahu said:
Surely the tax system could be simplified into one or two rates. It would cut out so much compliance effort and loopholes if we could work out the right numbers and charge everyone eg 20% of income. I hate dealing with HMRC.
Thread premise is a leading question but some thrive on red tape and the UK loves the complexity of its tax system, as do many availing of it. There's no incentive to reduce it. I suspect any red tape bonfire will be more about doing away with protections than it will be about any simplifications.That's probably the easiest question ever asked on PH.
From an article 7 years ago, and the situation has deteriorated even further since then, the UK tax code is now more than 21,000 pages and has surpassed 10 million words, 12 times the length of the complete works of Shakespeare:
"Why does the UK have the longest tax code in the world? The Hong Kong tax code, widely held by tax lawyers to be the most admirably efficient in the world, is 276 pages long. The British tax code, rapidly beginning to look like the most disingenuous in the world, is currently in excess of 17,000 pages. It has more than trebled in size since 1997."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb...
Short answer - scrap UK tax code and use Hong Kongs.
From an article 7 years ago, and the situation has deteriorated even further since then, the UK tax code is now more than 21,000 pages and has surpassed 10 million words, 12 times the length of the complete works of Shakespeare:
"Why does the UK have the longest tax code in the world? The Hong Kong tax code, widely held by tax lawyers to be the most admirably efficient in the world, is 276 pages long. The British tax code, rapidly beginning to look like the most disingenuous in the world, is currently in excess of 17,000 pages. It has more than trebled in size since 1997."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb...
Short answer - scrap UK tax code and use Hong Kongs.
dirty boy said:
As an accountant....come on Eric...bet you'd love to see AML stuff wound back down
10 years ago (ish) it was a quick box tick for a passport and utility bill, now it's page after page of answering questions and assessing risk and to be sure, still, sticking it through veriphy or similar as the sanction list is a million pages..all pissing around to check 'Bob', an NHS lifer, now a pensioner with some savings paying over the allowance, who you've known your entire life, family friend, but in case your governing body pops in, you need to have an MI6 dossier in place...I'm not going to lie, i hate it all.
(yes I know it's there to protect, doesn't mean I don't like it)
I'm no fan of "red tape" either - but some of it is necessary or else we'd be trampled by all sorts of organisations,. Imagine flying in an airliner that hadn't been through some "red tape".10 years ago (ish) it was a quick box tick for a passport and utility bill, now it's page after page of answering questions and assessing risk and to be sure, still, sticking it through veriphy or similar as the sanction list is a million pages..all pissing around to check 'Bob', an NHS lifer, now a pensioner with some savings paying over the allowance, who you've known your entire life, family friend, but in case your governing body pops in, you need to have an MI6 dossier in place...I'm not going to lie, i hate it all.
(yes I know it's there to protect, doesn't mean I don't like it)
dmahu said:
Surely the tax system could be simplified into one or two rates. It would cut out so much compliance effort and loopholes if we could work out the right numbers and charge everyone eg 20% of income. I hate dealing with HMRC.
Liz Truss is on the case. In order to simplify tax, she announced (through her Chancellor) that the Office of Tax Simplification is being abolished 
Eric Mc said:
dmahu said:
Surely the tax system could be simplified into one or two rates. It would cut out so much compliance effort and loopholes if we could work out the right numbers and charge everyone eg 20% of income. I hate dealing with HMRC.
Liz Truss is on the case. In order to simplify tax, she announced (through her Chancellor) that the Office of Tax Simplification is being abolished 
Largechris said:
Eric Mc said:
dmahu said:
Surely the tax system could be simplified into one or two rates. It would cut out so much compliance effort and loopholes if we could work out the right numbers and charge everyone eg 20% of income. I hate dealing with HMRC.
Liz Truss is on the case. In order to simplify tax, she announced (through her Chancellor) that the Office of Tax Simplification is being abolished Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff