It will be interesting to see how difficult the Freedom Caucus folks in the House make this. I still wish they would start cutting things from the budget to get the deficit to ZERO, or better yet a surplus. We owe that to our kids. Thoughts?
VOX Tax Bill Differences
CNN Tax Bill Differences
USA Today House May Balk
VOX Tax Bill Differences
CNN Tax Bill Differences
USA Today House May Balk
83 comments:
Republicans only care about deficits when they can be used as a weapon against Democrats. What about the last 40 years of GOP policy have you not picked up on yet?
Sean,
On this we agree, they seem to be very foolish and selfish.
None of these apparently responsible adults seems interested in paying their own bills. They seem fine with passing our expenses on to our children.
A link for those who disagree
Some More Regarding GOP Inconsistencies
the house already passed a bill with a huge tax cut. I don't think the freedom caucus will do anything to slow this down. Maybe a few will vote no because they can and the bill will still pass.
“The hypocrisy is astounding”: this tax bill shows the GOP’s debt concerns were pure fraud
The only Republican who actually cared about the deficit was Joe Scarborough, and he left the party recently.
--Hiram
Laurie,
Great minds think alike, you duplicated my link.
Hiram,
I think a lot of GOP folk are concerned about the National Debt, unfortunately they seem to be willing to swallow that silly "we will grow revenues by growing the economy so much faster" BS... That is why I often post the Voodoo Graph link.
I think a lot of GOP folk are concerned about the National Debt, unfortunately they seem to be willing to swallow that silly "we will grow revenues by growing the economy so much faster" BS
That's simply a rationalization. The economy often grows when taxes are high, and it struggles when taxes are low. That's been our historical experience.
--Hiram
Please provide a source regarding this counter intuitive view.
I believe lower taxes can grow the economy faster. Just not enough to make up for all the tax revenue that is lost by the rate reductions.
Just because you cut the budget for something, doesn't mean the need for what was paid for goes away. A lot of government is a very complex form of three card monte. Sometimes the Queen is in the center, sometimes the card is on the right, and sometimes the card is on the left. But the card never goes away.
--Hiram
I'll just leave this here:
BI: Tax Cuts Don't Lead To Growth
The way we spend money varies in it's impact on the economy. And who does the spending doesn't necessarily matter. Sen. Grassley says we spend money on wine, women, and song, basically. Is spending on those things good for the economy? Does such spending generate economic activity?
Some people use money for speculation. They might buy a house in the expectation that it would rise and value. If the market collapses, the money they spent won't generate additional economic activity, it will simply disappear, unlike a rabbit in a magic act.
I am uncomfortable in using tax policy with the goal of improving the economy. It's just a bit too complicated for me. But putting that aside for the moment, what's better for your local community's economy. Spending money on wine women and song, money that is paid out by the recipients and circulates in the economy? Or giving money to speculators where there is a good chance that it will disappear altogether, particularly when markets, as they are now, are high?
--Hiram
Heritage Tax Bills Comparison Table
Heritage Why This Time will be different
With the elimination of deregulation, always a first step to a financial meltdown, it's hard to understand how this time will be different. Money burns holes in the pockets of the rich. Exotic financial instruments beckon. Modern art needs to be purchased. Vacation homes develop urgent needs for car elevators. Money that could otherwise be usefully and productively spent on booze and movie will be diverted to campaign officers who will spin dreams of electoral glory. Even thinking about these potential uses for the financial windfall about to descend leaves me all aquiver.
--Hiram
"Heritage Why This Time will be different"
There's precisely zero reason to think it will be different. These clowns have been wrong on everything.
How the Republicans Broke Congress
Hiram,
As long as the money keeps being earned and spent, that is a good thing. Please remember that vacation homes need builders and political campaigns hire all kinds of people and fund all types of employees.
Seam,
Only time will tell.
Laurie,
Any source that does not report ACA as a cause of today's dysfunction seems disingenuous. On the upside the GOP seems to be cooking its own goose...
And this reversal on Moore sure is not going to help
"Only time will tell."
One of the guys behind one of the studies cited in your link was Glenn Hubbard, who as the Chair of the Board of Economic Advisors under George W. Bush gave us two of the biggest financial whoppers of all time -- that the Bush tax cuts wouldn't add to the deficit (sound familiar?) and that the costs of the Iraq invasion would be "very small".
These dudes have been so wrong so may times they have no credibility.
"Any source that does not report ACA as a cause of today's dysfunction seems disingenuous."
How, specifically, was the process used to pass the ACA suspect?
Here's a classic from the archives:
Heritage: Economic Impact of President Bush's Tax Relief Plan
"The final results show that the Bush plan would significantly increase economic growth and family income while substantially reducing federal debt. For example:
Under President Bush's plan, an average family of four's inflation-adjusted disposable income would increase by $4,544 in fiscal year (FY) 2011, and the national debt would effectively be paid off by FY 2010.
The net tax revenue reduction, after accounting for the larger tax base that would result from higher employment and faster economic growth under the Bush plan, is $1.1 trillion from FY 2002 to FY 2011, 33.4 percent less than conventional static estimates.
The plan would save the entire Social Security surplus and increase personal savings while the federal government accumulated $1.8 trillion in uncommitted funds from FY 2008 to FY 2011, revenue that could be used to reform the Social Security and Medicare systems and reduce the payroll tax."
Nailed it!
I agree that I am skeptical, though I am interested to see how the corporate rates work?
It is in the best interest of American workers to attract businesses into America, and to lower the cost of doing business in America.
Otherwise our bargain sensitive consumers keep buying elsewhere. And we keep losing great jobs...
All you have to do is listen to what the CEOs are saying. They're planning on giving the tax windfall to shareholders, not invest in their businesses. Businesses expand and grow when demand improves. If you want demand to improve, you need to put more money in the hands of consumers -- the middle and working class.
Sean,
If you think it helps to for people to give money to the low and middle class workers, please tell your Liberal friends to start buying American Made, Designed, Offices here, etc.
I am sure the CEO's will use the money for many things including research and development, factory automation, buying back stock, etc. Their goal is to dominate the world market and competition is INTENSE...
Continually you make comments that indicate you see American employers as our enemy... Hopefully someday you will understand that they are our golden goose.
The biggest concern I have is that a BUNCH of CEO's are going to get big bonuses that they do not deserve.
Their stock prices will rise for something that they had no hand in accomplishing. Hopefully the boards will adjust their comp policies ASAP.
"Continually you make comments that indicate you see American employers as our enemy... Hopefully someday you will understand that they are our golden goose."
Once again, you attempt to put words in my mouth. Stop!
I don't see employers as the enemy at all. They respond to what they are incented to do. The problem is that we're incenting them to do the wrong things. At a time when corporate profits are hovering around post-WW2 highs, Republicans think corporations need a tax cut? It makes no sense at all -- especially when it's being financed by whacking tax benefits for people pursuing advanced degrees, deductions for teachers, deductions for medical expenses, and numerous other provisions that directly target middle-class taxpayers.
I also don't see them as the golden goose. It's not society's job to lay a path of gold in front of them. Society should balance the needs of labor and capital so that the system is fair to both, because both are required. Right now, the system is heavily tilted in favor of capital.
"...please tell your Liberal friends to start buying American Made, Designed, Offices here, etc."
Interestingly, in my circle, it is the conservatives and republicans who shop at WalMart and are always looking for the best deal and the cheapest item. My Liberal friends and I typically look for quality, locally made, artisan goods that support real American people and businesses. This is to say, we put our money where our mouth is whenever possible. For the conservatives I know, such a thing doesn't even cross their minds.
Moose
Moose,
Do a quick survey for me... Of your friends, what percentage of them own a car who's TDC score is 60 or higher?
KOGOD Auto Index
Sean,
"The problem is that we're incenting them to do the wrong things."
So what do you think we are incenting them to do today?
What do you think the new tax bill will incent them to do differently?
"So what do you think we are incenting them to do today?"
Do you really believe our corporate tax system is designed to grow jobs in our economy? Companies can deduct their expenses for offshoring jobs from their tax returns. Look at how executive compensation is handled. Carried interest for hedge funds (which somehow doens't get fixed in the GOP bill). There are so many examples of how we reward behavior that is contrary to what we want to happen in the economy.
"What do you think the new tax bill will incent them to do differently?"
I've already said that. Look above. This encourages kickbacks to stockholders, not jobs to the middle class.
"Do a quick survey for me... Of your friends, what percentage of them own a car who's TDC score is 60 or higher?"
Since I don't keep track of what kind of cars my friends drive, that's ridiculous. However, seeing as there are 95 models with a score of 60 or better, and many of them are the most popular models, it's likely that most of my friends do.
But a car is not an everyday purchase. How a person spends their money on a daily basis is going to have more impact, and on more businesses, than a car purchase.
Moose
Sean,
I think you missed the questions.
So what do you think we are incenting them to do today?
What do you think the new tax bill will incent them to do differently?
Personally I think both incent companies to increase the strength and value of their companies, which benefits all of us who are stock holders, Americans and employees.
Do you foresee Chinese or other companies dominating the world market and financial systems being in someway better for American workers?
Though I do agree that carried interest and executive compensation are potential issues.
"Of your friends, what percentage of them own a car who's TDC score is 60 or higher?"
Our two cars total 147. My four neighbors who I know were Trump voters (each 2-car families) total 141, 130, 82, and 77.
So, what's the point? Maybe that you're just using a made-up stereotype?
"I think you missed the questions."
No, I didn't. I have neither the time nor the inclination to educate you on the details of the tax code, unless you want to pay me my hourly rate. I gave you summary-level answers of some of the problems, as I have done on numerous other occasions.
You have got be kidding. Your car is a huge investment for most people.
Then let's go into their major appliances, cell phones, computers, printers, etc...
Do they pick the:
- Samsungs, LGs, Bosch, Lenovas, Epsons, Canons, etc or
- Whirlpool, Maytag, Apple, Motorola, Dell, HP, etc
So you really don't know what cars your friends drive?
Or were the survey results that bad?
Please note that the vast majority of those with scores >60 are GM, FORD, Chrysler, Toyota and Honda.
If they own Subaru, VW, BMW, Mercedes, Lexus, Porsche, Audi, Volvo, Mazda, Infiniti, Jaguar, Mini, Acura, etc.
And even the Nissans, Toyotas, Hondas, Hyundais, Kias, etc also have a fair number of really low domestic content models.
Sean,
My point as always is that Conservatives can buy any car without appearing to be hypocrites. Well they used to be able to when they supported free trade and global competition... :-) Now we will have to see where they go.
However as Moose notes, the Liberals swear that we need to support US Unions and Workers against globalization and it's downward pressure on the wages of workers.
And as you note it is terrible that "Companies can deduct their expenses for offshoring jobs from their tax returns." even though it is a valid cost of doing business, and often necessary to be competitive in certain industries.
So yes I do find it amusing and hypocritical that so many "support the US workers, US taxes, etc" people choose to "outsource US jobs" to overseas companies and manufacturers.
While complaining about companies doing just what they did...
"And as you note it is terrible that "Companies can deduct their expenses for offshoring jobs from their tax returns." even though it is a valid cost of doing business, and often necessary to be competitive in certain industries."
That doesn't mean we have to reward it via the tax code.
Sean,
You gave me specific policies.
You did not discuss what the overall US tax code incents companies to do?
And how the new code will change that?
What will going from a 35% to a 20% corporate tax rate do?
Will they really claim it all as profit and drive up share prices?
Or will they use some of it to increase their R&D and Marketing efforts?
If the competition does business in low cost countries, and the customers are fine with that...
What exactly do you think US companies should do?
Keep their plants here, cut their R&D budgets, etc?
Other?
The problem, John, as I have said before: corporations aren't lacking for profit and cash flow.
FRED: Corporate Profits After Tax as a Percentage of GDP
FRED: Labor Compensation Share of GDP
Since the Great Recession, corporate profits have been at or near post-WW2 highs and labor's share of GDP is at or near post-WW2 lows. The 50 largest publicly-traded companies have over $1 trillion in cash reserves.
So, why would we give corporations an additional tax cut now? They don't need it!
"What exactly do you think US companies should do?"
Companies are free to offshore their business if they want. Taxpayers just shouldn't subsidize that decision.
"Please note that the vast majority of those with scores >60 are GM, FORD, Chrysler, Toyota and Honda."
WHICH MOST PEOPLE DRIVE! Gods, you are obtuse. I don't know the details of the models of car my friends drive. Why is that hard for you to understand?
My point stands that everyday purchases are going to affect more local businesses than a car purchase.
Moose
Moose,
Sorry... I am a car guy... I know what make model each of my friends drive.
Sorry to say but cars impact a lot of jobs and taxes. As do major appliances, computers and cell phones.
Spending a little extra each month on "quality, locally made, artisan goods" is good, however it is relatively low dollars for most people.
Housing, cars, healthcare, insurance, travel, utilities, etc eats up most of people's income.
Sean,
I have been pretty clear that if I ruled all, we would go back to the Clinton tax rates and cut spending to get at least 80% of the National debt paid down ASAP. Of course then the Liberals would complain about the GOP raising taxes on the poor and middle class, and those draconian cuts.
And yes US companies are doing good and US employees not so well. Many of the good paying jobs have been off shored or automated. And a lot of those profits are being generated over seas. And a lot of those profits require little labor. (is Facebook, Google, Microsoft, etc)
So how do we encourage more companies to bring jobs back here? Keep taxes high?
I think this is a philosophy issue... "Taxpayers just shouldn't subsidize that decision."
The reality is that rarely do tax payers subsidize anything except via welfare, ACA, etc.
Mostly they just let people / companies keep a little more of "their money". And in this case we tax profits, not revenue. And it seems you want to tax an expense... (ie money they do not have anymore)
"So how do we encourage more companies to bring jobs back here?"
Why not give them the tax cut for bringing the jobs back here? That's not so difficult, right?
"Mostly they just let people / companies keep a little more of "their money". And in this case we tax profits, not revenue. And it seems you want to tax an expense... (ie money they do not have anymore)"
There are a number of differences between GAAP and tax accounting (depreciation being a primary example). Yes, I am proposing that a company that spends money to offshore johs would not be able to take those expenses as an offset against their revenue (thereby increasing the profit they would have to pay tax on).
"The reality is that rarely do tax payers subsidize anything except via welfare, ACA, etc."
If a company spends $1 million on offshoring, and they can deduct that from their taxes, that's a $350,000 savings if the company is paying the maximum corporate tax rate (or about 6x the median household income). How can you say that isn't a subsidy?
"Spending a little extra each month on "quality, locally made, artisan goods" is good, however it is relatively low dollars for most people."
A lot of people eat out once a week. Locally-owned non-chain restaurants benefit.
You can shop at the farmers market. Local farmers benefit.
You can shop at food co-ops or buy CSA shares.
That's a HUGE chunk of money each week that can be spent on local business owners and their workers. And that's just food.
Moose
Sean,
They need long term incentives to do business here where so many people like yourself think they should pay great compensation, great benefits, great job security, endure costly regulations, etc while being paid no more for their product or service. And worse yet often Liberals are against using tax policy to attract companies.
And yes you want to punish a domestic company for doing what other foreign competitors have already done, and American customers have already approved of. It is hard to see our companies surviving with that view.
Moose,
The services you discuss are often high domestic content whether you buy from the locally owned restaurant or the US owned corporation. Food is something that the USA does great and competitively.
And after looking at the India and China fields I can see why... A lot of hand work and little automation...
So your examples may help local entrepreneurs more, they do not make much difference to the country as a whole.
"So your examples may help local entrepreneurs more, they do not make much difference to the country as a whole."
Apple was once a local entrepreneur.
Jeff Bezos sold his first book out of his garage.
Starbucks...
The list goes on.
Moose
Moose,
By the way, there is nothing wrong with you and your friends buying the product or service that maximizes your benefit from the transaction.
The only thing I question is how you rationalize bashing others for doing the same thing. Meaning those firms / investors who buy products / services from over seas.
"And yes you want to punish a domestic company for doing what other foreign competitors have already done"
Calling it "punishment" is an odd concept, because it's not the company that's being punished. It's the workers who are losing their jobs, the regions that lose that economic vitality, and the taxpayers who help to pick up the bill that are being punished.
You want to talk about welfare? Helping companies cover the bills for the destruction of American jobs is far worse than any check a poor person gets to put a roof over their head, food on the table, or enable them to see a doctor.
And it says a lot about the values of those who think it's more important that we take care of that company instead of that poor person.
So let me get this straight... You want to take care of the poor by keeping it expensive to do business and employ people in America?
Of course the company is being punished... You want to tax money they don't have.
So since you are apparently against sending jobs over seas, are you ready to apply extra taxes at the consumer level for all high foreign content products and services?
That way the consumers who out source jobs have to pay a penalty? Let's say a $5,000 tariff on every vehicle under with a TDC that is less than 40
"You want to take care of the poor by keeping it expensive to do business and employ people in America?"
Nothing in my modest proposal increases the cost of employing people in America.
Sean,
Just disallowing overseas relocation expense deductions seems to be just a small part of your preferences.
Some other preferences I think you support are:
- maintaining the higher corporate tax rates
- maintaining the large amount of regulatory control / burden
This is an interesting related link
I mean SOX Compliance by itself is HUGE for most companies.
"Some other preferences I think you support"
This is bound to be entertainingly wrong.
"maintaining the higher corporate tax rates"
Nope. I favor revenue-neutral corporate tax reform. Eliminate all the junk and lower rates across-the-board.
"maintaining the large amount of regulatory control / burden"
I don't favor any more regulations than are required. It's also worth pointing out -- yet again -- that American regulatory burden is relatively low when compared to the rest of the world.
Revenue neutral corporate tax reform = same high cost to US companies...
Same old misstatement.
Your preferred source does state that USA is a great place to do business, but mostly because getting credit is easy, we enforce contracts and going bankrupt is easy.
In most other areas we 36th or above... Not what I would call relatively low...
And if a filter by high income countries...
Starting a business 54
Dealing with Construction permits 54
Registering property 54
Getting credit 54
Paying taxes 54
So many 54's does seem suspicious... Maybe the site has an issue.
"Revenue neutral corporate tax reform = same high cost to US companies..."
As we've been through before, while the U.S. has a high statutory rate, the actual corporate taxes paid in this country are comparable to other OECD countries. Revenue-neutral corporate tax reform along the lines I describe would rationalize the collection of those dollars.
"So many 54's does seem suspicious.."
You think?
Even our worst ranking places us in the top 30% of all countries -- and as I've listed multiple times in the past, on every single one of the categories we fare better than many of our competitors.
Can you think of any reason we should not be in the top 10% in every category?
And the #1 best country for doing business?
I mean we want our workers to have the highest standard of living in the world. And for the most part we do for now.
However the other countries are gaining as we remain somewhat stagnant or head toward the Left.
"Can you think of any reason we should not be in the top 10% in every category?"
Do you want to be in the top 10% in every category?
Look, for instance, at the methodology for "Dealing With Construction Permits" -- you achieve a high ranking in the category by having *more* inspections (by highly-qualified people) than less.
"However the other countries are gaining as we remain somewhat stagnant or head toward the Left."
What's the evidence of that? We've done very well compared to the EU and Japan since the Great Recession.
I think you should look again
And Europe and Japan don't concern me. China, Taiwan and South Korea seem to be the future ones to beat.
I think you mean this:
Dealikng With Construction Permits
Nah.. My link shows the same things at more of a summary level.
There are 4 criteria as usual: Steps, Time, Cost, Quality
Dealing with construction permits
Procedures (number)
Time (days)
Cost (% of warehouse value)
Building quality control index (0–15)
Dude, look at the building quality control index. This is why you have to look at the details. You're just like your GOP friends in Congress who think in soundbites, not policy.
You seem to be like your DEM friends, only seeing what you want to see.
"Quality Control Index" is only 1 of the 4 factors.
Would it make sense if I said...
Sean, You just need to look at the "Procedures" aspect of the score? Ignore that quality aspect...
Please remember the purpose of this device.
"Economies are ranked on their ease of doing business, from 1–190. A high ease of doing business ranking means the regulatory environment is more conducive to the starting and operation of a local firm. The rankings are determined by sorting the aggregate distance to frontier scores on 10 topics, each consisting of several indicators, giving equal weight to each topic."
Though building quality is one aspect of this, cost, steps and time are definitely just as important or more to a starting business. And they certainly are fine using quality design and build firms rather government regulators.
"Economies are ranked on their ease of doing business, from 1–190. A high ease of doing business ranking means the regulatory environment is more conducive to the starting and operation of a local firm. The rankings are determined by sorting the aggregate distance to frontier scores on 10 topics, each consisting of several indicators, giving equal weight to each topic."
And we are ranked 6th in the world, and you're moaning about how terrible it is. There's really no length you won't go to lick the boots of corporations and kick poor people, is there?
"Though building quality is one aspect of this, cost, steps and time are definitely just as important or more to a starting business. And they certainly are fine using quality design and build firms rather government regulators."
But whether it's a regulator or a "quality design and build firm", it's still a *regulation*.
Again you are filtering...
The only reason we are so low is that getting credit is easy, we enforce contracts and going bankrupt is relatively easy. It is good that we have a stable, wealthy, low corruption country. We simply aren't that great in other more regulatory / costly issues.
I am not saying we are terrible. But if we want to stay on top, we have room for improvement.
And NO. A person or company CHOOSING to hire another firm is in NO WAY like being forced to fill out forms, check boxes, schedule inspections, etc. Ask anyone who has chosen to do some work on the house and they pull a building permit.
Now I agree that some building requirements, planning and inspection is good, however there definitely can be a tipping point.
Read the methodology, you dope. Good scores on this measure are not about optional choosing, it's about there being a regulation in place.
It did not say that the "Quality Control Index" did not use "regulation robustness" as a measure.
I simply disagreed with your stated opinion.
"But whether it's a regulator or a "quality design and build firm", it's still a *regulation*."
Regulation defined: "a rule or order issued by an executive authority or regulatory agency of a government and having the force of law "
I have spent my adult life designing and building many pieces of equipment where few "regulations" applied. And yet to satisfy our customers and maintain our excellent reputation we must maintain excellent quality.
"It did not say that the "Quality Control Index" did not use "regulation robustness" as a measure."
Oh, for cripes sake. Let me explain it to you like an elementary-schooler.
Let's look at the elements of the quality control index.
Quality control before construction index: "The quality control before construction index has one component:
Whether by law, a licensed architect or licensed engineer is part of the committee or team that reviews and approves building permit applications and whether that person has the authority to refuse an application if the plans are not in conformity with regulations."
Quality control during construction index: "The quality control during construction index has two components:
Whether inspections are mandated by law during the construction process."
Quality control after construction index: "The quality control after construction index has two components:
Whether a final inspection is mandated by law in order to verify that the building was built in accordance with the approved plans and existing building regulations."
Liability and insurance regimes index: "Whether any parties involved in the construction process is legally required to obtain a latent defect liability—or decennial (10 years) liability—insurance policy to cover possible structural flaws or problems in the building once it is in use."
Professional certifications index: "The professional certifications index has two components:
The qualification requirements of the professional responsible for verifying that the architectural plans or drawings are in compliance with the building regulations. A score of 2 is assigned if national or state regulations mandate that the professional must have a minimum number of years of practical experience, must have a university degree (a minimum of a bachelor’s) in architecture or engineering, and must also either be a registered member of the national order (association) of architects or engineers or pass a qualification exam.
...
The qualification requirements of the professional who conducts the technical inspections during construction. A score of 2 is assigned if national or state regulations mandate that the professional must have a minimum number of years of practical experience, must have a university degree (a minimum of a bachelor’s) in engineering, and must also either be a registered member of the national order of engineers or pass a qualification exam."
Personally I like Table 2 to explain this index.
However the point of this score is not just quality.
Dealing with construction permits
Procedures (number)
Time (days)
Cost (% of warehouse value)
Building quality control index (0–15)
And the reality is that often Quality and the Other 3 are at odds. So it is just a point of balancing all 4 to get the best score possible.
One can often improve quality through clear requirements, redundant reviews / inspections, etc. However it usually comes with a step, time and financial cost.
Where are we miscommunicating?
Are you seriously this obtuse?
When I have a miscommunication problem with someone, I always try to step back and consider my role in it.
Now after decades of education and successful employment I know that I am pretty smart.
So I will ask again...
Where are we miscommunicating?
You said "It did not say that the "Quality Control Index" did not use "regulation robustness" as a measure."
I showed that in fact most of the Quality Control Index is based on the regulations that are in place.
This isn't that hard. You're just stuck in your talking point.
Actually I said this...
"It did not say that the "Quality Control Index" did not use "regulation robustness" as a measure."
which if you remove the double negatives reads.
It agree the "Quality Control Index" uses "regulation robustness" as a measure.
You said you disagreed with my opinion. You said that things that were in fact regulations weren't.
If you're agreeing with me now, great. But you clearly were not before.
I still do disagree with this specific sentence...
"But whether it's a regulator or a "quality design and build firm", it's still a *regulation*."
For this reason:
Regulation defined: "a rule or order issued by an executive authority or regulatory agency of a government and having the force of law "
I can do this and still state.
"I agree the "Quality Control Index" uses "regulation robustness" as a measure."
They seem mutually exclusive to me.
Post a Comment