29 ms·

Does the US have any state or federal laws that don't benefit the wealthy at least as much as a regular citizen? As far as I'm aware, even laws for the small b

Does the US have any state or federal laws that don't benefit the wealthy at least as much as a regular citizen? As far as I'm aware, even laws for the small business play into the favor of larger corporations either directly or via auxiliary laws.

Retric 4y ago
US automotive lemon law for example doesn’t specifically benefit the wealthy or large corporations. What muddles the picture is people do benefit from economies of scale. So, if you make the law actually hostile for large companies both the general public and corporations are worse off.
- Adraghast 4y ago
  > if you make the law actually hostile for large companies both the general public and corporations are worse off What an overly broad thing to say!
  - Retric 4y ago
    Hostile as in preventing the existence of rather than simply detrimental.
- oxfeed65261 4y ago
  Lemon laws only apply to cars sold with warranties. Wealthier people are more likely to buy new cars, or used cars with warranties. Poor people are relatively much more likely to buy cheaper used cars without warranties. Rich people also buy more cars over their lives, increasing their chances of coming across a lemon. Therefore, lemon laws are relatively more beneficial for wealthier people.
  - phpthrowaway99 4y ago
    I get what you're saying, but if a construction worker buys a new Ford F150 that is constantly breaking, that is a much bigger problem to him than if a wealthy person buys a Range Rover as a 3rd vehicle for Tahoe runs and that vehicle has some recurring check engine lights. Unless we're calling construction workers buying F150s with 72 month loans wealthy these days.
    - jacobr1 4y ago
      No, I think the OP is suggesting that the more likely scenario is some professional-class "weekend-warrior" type bought the F150s with the 72m loan, which later on was resold to the working-class construction worker on the secondary market.
      - phpthrowaway99 4y ago
        I suppose. Even lemon laws are funny if you follow them to their conclusion, so maybe OP is right. Once a vehicle gets lemon lawed, it gets sent to auction where it is disclosed to dealers, and then it's just sold again to the public as a used car without the ability to be lemon lawed at that point.
        jacobr1 4y ago
        There are some laws around maintaining the history the car. Sales must be recorded, certain accidents. I think certain types of flood damage. Getting a carfax is a must if you are buying a used car.
        Retric 4y ago
        Sold yes, but also marked as a lemon. https://www.lemonlawlawyerscalifornia.com/2022/08/how-to-know-vehicle-lemon-history/ https://www.lemonlawlawyerscalifornia.com/2022/08/how-to-kno... There is nothing wrong with buying a lemon car at a sufficient discount.
    - fragmede 4y ago
      I mean, yeah I would call someone in a brand new $75k vehicle wealthy, even if they did take financing to afford it. Especially if they took dealer financing. Who buys new and who can qualify for a loan like that these days? But if you’re talking a $15k used model and taking financing on that, that’s a different story.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - Retric 4y ago
    Every car initially comes under warranty and if a used car was returned under lemon law you can find out before buying it. https://www.lemonlawlawyerscalifornia.com/2022/08/how-to-know-vehicle-lemon-history/ https://www.lemonlawlawyerscalifornia.com/2022/08/how-to-kno... Thus lemon law benefits every single consumer whether buying a new or used car.
wpietri 4y ago
Food safety laws are a good example. By acting as a floor on manufacturer and restaurant hygiene and ingredient quality, they help the poor a fair bit more than the rich.
- moffkalast 4y ago
  The rich also need to well... eat. It benefits them as much as anybody. For example milk started to be regulated more only after someone in Al Capone's family got poisoned and he bribed the right people to make it a thing. You're kidding yourself if you think any of that was to benefit the poor in the first place lmao, just happens to be a side effect.
  - wpietri 4y ago
    The rich do need to eat, but they can and generally do eat from places with much higher margins and higher-value brands. Those places have less incentive to cut corners and more incentive to keep their customers healthy. The poorer you are, though, the more constrained your choices are and the more risk you may have to take. Food safety laws act as a quality floor (or a risk ceiling if you prefer), so they help poor people more than the rich.
    - Xeoncross 4y ago
      While this is true, the OP's argument could also include other reasons they wanted this such as avoiding costly sickness in their employees. I can assure you that amazon and walmart care at least a little about the health of the minimum wage workers they depend on to move inventory.
      - est31 4y ago
        Amazon is famous for not caring about the health of their workers, compared to competitors in the same industry. They pay above the market and replace the market's healthy workers with workers with health issues. They don't care to optimize their process towards worker health as currently the supply outstrips their demand. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/12/study-amazon-workers-suffer-serious-injuries-at-twice-rate-of-rivals.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/12/study-amazon-workers-suffer-... But I do agree with your general argument, a healthy workforce is better for a country's economy.
dpb1 4y ago
social security, medicare, medicaid, WIC Programs, public schools, public transportation, all come to mind. I mean, no coincidence that they are always on the top of the list to threaten and scheme to cut by the right wing.
whimsicalism 4y ago
Progressive taxation?
- Brusco_RF 4y ago
  +1 for being the most concise rebuttal. What an asinine statement that poster made
rndmize 4y ago
This seems like an odd question to me. Social security? Medicare? Free education? The entire welfare state? The vast majority of regulatory apparatus, which is generally implemented when wealthy/owner class people cause damage to employees/poor people to a degree that political action is taken (NLRB, FDA, OSHA, EPA, CFPB, etc.)? The great volume of services provided to all citizens, for free - weather forecasting, GPS, state/federal parks, federally funded research; laws like the CRA, VRA or ADA which help those disadvantaged by racism, disability, etc. Look, I'm not going to say regulatory capture doesn't exist, or that the wealthy don't have advantages in getting laws passed that favor their interests, but there's a great deal of stuff that gets done that is specifically for the poor or the average citizen.
- orthecreedence 4y ago
  > This seems like an odd question to me. Social security? Medicare? Free education? The entire welfare state? These benefit the wealthy. They are used the quell the thirst for wealthy blood that would otherwise be prevalent. They are crumbs thrown to the masses to keep them from revolting during uncertain times. > The vast majority of regulatory apparatus I'd argue most regulatory bodies are captured agenies in the US. The delineation between state and industry has been fading for decades. They either look the other way, or overregulate to choke out any competition that would unseat existing players. Regulation in the US is almost entirely in service to capital. > weather forecasting, GPS Again, these are likely more in service to the economy (capital) than normal citizens. > state/federal parks Fair enough. I'd add libraries to this list as well. These institutions are actually kind of an odd exception to America's complete obsession with privatization, consumerism, and capital. > laws like the CRA, VRA or ADA which help those disadvantaged by racism, disability, etc. Again, fair enough. > federally funded research Yes, often funded by the citizens such that private industry can sell the result without recompense. > Look, I'm not going to say regulatory capture doesn't exist It's the the rule, not the exception.
  - tqi 4y ago
    > These benefit the wealthy. They are used the quell the thirst for wealthy blood that would otherwise be prevalent. By that standard, a law completely redistributed wealth from top to bottom could still be viewed as primarily "benefiting the wealthy"...

Retric 4y ago

US automotive lemon law for example doesn’t specifically benefit the wealthy or large corporations. What muddles the picture is people do benefit from economies of scale. So, if you make the law actually hostile for large companies both the general public and corporations are worse off.

Adraghast 4y ago
> if you make the law actually hostile for large companies both the general public and corporations are worse off What an overly broad thing to say!
- Retric 4y ago
  Hostile as in preventing the existence of rather than simply detrimental.
oxfeed65261 4y ago
Lemon laws only apply to cars sold with warranties. Wealthier people are more likely to buy new cars, or used cars with warranties. Poor people are relatively much more likely to buy cheaper used cars without warranties. Rich people also buy more cars over their lives, increasing their chances of coming across a lemon. Therefore, lemon laws are relatively more beneficial for wealthier people.
- phpthrowaway99 4y ago
  I get what you're saying, but if a construction worker buys a new Ford F150 that is constantly breaking, that is a much bigger problem to him than if a wealthy person buys a Range Rover as a 3rd vehicle for Tahoe runs and that vehicle has some recurring check engine lights. Unless we're calling construction workers buying F150s with 72 month loans wealthy these days.
  - jacobr1 4y ago
    No, I think the OP is suggesting that the more likely scenario is some professional-class "weekend-warrior" type bought the F150s with the 72m loan, which later on was resold to the working-class construction worker on the secondary market.
    - phpthrowaway99 4y ago
      I suppose. Even lemon laws are funny if you follow them to their conclusion, so maybe OP is right. Once a vehicle gets lemon lawed, it gets sent to auction where it is disclosed to dealers, and then it's just sold again to the public as a used car without the ability to be lemon lawed at that point.
      - jacobr1 4y ago
        There are some laws around maintaining the history the car. Sales must be recorded, certain accidents. I think certain types of flood damage. Getting a carfax is a must if you are buying a used car.
      - Retric 4y ago
        Sold yes, but also marked as a lemon. https://www.lemonlawlawyerscalifornia.com/2022/08/how-to-know-vehicle-lemon-history/ https://www.lemonlawlawyerscalifornia.com/2022/08/how-to-kno... There is nothing wrong with buying a lemon car at a sufficient discount.
  - fragmede 4y ago
    I mean, yeah I would call someone in a brand new $75k vehicle wealthy, even if they did take financing to afford it. Especially if they took dealer financing. Who buys new and who can qualify for a loan like that these days? But if you’re talking a $15k used model and taking financing on that, that’s a different story.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Retric 4y ago
  Every car initially comes under warranty and if a used car was returned under lemon law you can find out before buying it. https://www.lemonlawlawyerscalifornia.com/2022/08/how-to-know-vehicle-lemon-history/ https://www.lemonlawlawyerscalifornia.com/2022/08/how-to-kno... Thus lemon law benefits every single consumer whether buying a new or used car.

wpietri 4y ago

Food safety laws are a good example. By acting as a floor on manufacturer and restaurant hygiene and ingredient quality, they help the poor a fair bit more than the rich.

moffkalast 4y ago
The rich also need to well... eat. It benefits them as much as anybody. For example milk started to be regulated more only after someone in Al Capone's family got poisoned and he bribed the right people to make it a thing. You're kidding yourself if you think any of that was to benefit the poor in the first place lmao, just happens to be a side effect.
- wpietri 4y ago
  The rich do need to eat, but they can and generally do eat from places with much higher margins and higher-value brands. Those places have less incentive to cut corners and more incentive to keep their customers healthy. The poorer you are, though, the more constrained your choices are and the more risk you may have to take. Food safety laws act as a quality floor (or a risk ceiling if you prefer), so they help poor people more than the rich.
  - Xeoncross 4y ago
    While this is true, the OP's argument could also include other reasons they wanted this such as avoiding costly sickness in their employees. I can assure you that amazon and walmart care at least a little about the health of the minimum wage workers they depend on to move inventory.
    - est31 4y ago
      Amazon is famous for not caring about the health of their workers, compared to competitors in the same industry. They pay above the market and replace the market's healthy workers with workers with health issues. They don't care to optimize their process towards worker health as currently the supply outstrips their demand. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/12/study-amazon-workers-suffer-serious-injuries-at-twice-rate-of-rivals.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/12/study-amazon-workers-suffer-... But I do agree with your general argument, a healthy workforce is better for a country's economy.

dpb1 4y ago

social security, medicare, medicaid, WIC Programs, public schools, public transportation, all come to mind. I mean, no coincidence that they are always on the top of the list to threaten and scheme to cut by the right wing.

whimsicalism 4y ago

Progressive taxation?

Brusco_RF 4y ago
+1 for being the most concise rebuttal. What an asinine statement that poster made

rndmize 4y ago

This seems like an odd question to me. Social security? Medicare? Free education? The entire welfare state? The vast majority of regulatory apparatus, which is generally implemented when wealthy/owner class people cause damage to employees/poor people to a degree that political action is taken (NLRB, FDA, OSHA, EPA, CFPB, etc.)? The great volume of services provided to all citizens, for free - weather forecasting, GPS, state/federal parks, federally funded research; laws like the CRA, VRA or ADA which help those disadvantaged by racism, disability, etc. Look, I'm not going to say regulatory capture doesn't exist, or that the wealthy don't have advantages in getting laws passed that favor their interests, but there's a great deal of stuff that gets done that is specifically for the poor or the average citizen.

orthecreedence 4y ago
> This seems like an odd question to me. Social security? Medicare? Free education? The entire welfare state? These benefit the wealthy. They are used the quell the thirst for wealthy blood that would otherwise be prevalent. They are crumbs thrown to the masses to keep them from revolting during uncertain times. > The vast majority of regulatory apparatus I'd argue most regulatory bodies are captured agenies in the US. The delineation between state and industry has been fading for decades. They either look the other way, or overregulate to choke out any competition that would unseat existing players. Regulation in the US is almost entirely in service to capital. > weather forecasting, GPS Again, these are likely more in service to the economy (capital) than normal citizens. > state/federal parks Fair enough. I'd add libraries to this list as well. These institutions are actually kind of an odd exception to America's complete obsession with privatization, consumerism, and capital. > laws like the CRA, VRA or ADA which help those disadvantaged by racism, disability, etc. Again, fair enough. > federally funded research Yes, often funded by the citizens such that private industry can sell the result without recompense. > Look, I'm not going to say regulatory capture doesn't exist It's the the rule, not the exception.
- tqi 4y ago
  > These benefit the wealthy. They are used the quell the thirst for wealthy blood that would otherwise be prevalent. By that standard, a law completely redistributed wealth from top to bottom could still be viewed as primarily "benefiting the wealthy"...