States Planning to Require License to Sell on EBay
RobMowery writes "CNN reports that North Dakota and other state governments are trying to pass laws to require people who are selling for others on Ebay to purchase an auctioneer license, attend classes (for a fee) and become bonded." From the article: "North Dakota's Public Service Commission is exploring whether people like Nichols, who runs a small consignment store in Crosby, must obtain auctioneer licenses before they can legally use eBay to sell merchandise for others. Regulators in other states are also eyeing similar restrictions or preconditions, moves prompted by the growing popularity of online auctions. To get a North Dakota auctioneer's license, applicants must pay a $35 fee, obtain a $5,000 surety bond and undergo training at one of eight approved auction schools, where the curriculum includes talking really fast ... Commissioner Kevin Cramer said he does not believe the law applies to people who sell their own goods over eBay, but it could cover those who sell property consigned by others for a fee."
Ok, someone who puts something on ebay ISN'T running the auction. Ebay is. The person placing the good on ebay sets the high price and reserve - but how is that any different than if you hire an auctioneer?
So does everyone who wants to hire an auctioneer now need a license to auction? How non-sensical is that?
This is, quite literally, a stab at taxing the internet.
> It will also provide a new source of tax revenue, which is the main reason the gov't wants it.
Close, but not quite.
> That $35 fee does not pay for the classes, which can be hundreds. And that surety bond - unless you are part of a company, you may have to front that money...that is a barrier to entry and not a lot of people can afford it. THe great thing about consignment on eBay is that you could get in for free.
Now you've got it. The "great thing" is only "great" to people like the buyers of products on eBay (who want more goods to purchase from a wider array of sellers) and to people who want to get into the business without having to pony up a few grand of protection money (oops, "to take classes on how to talk fast!") to line the pockets of people who are already well established.
In a free market, anyone can enter. If you give enough money to your politicians, however, you can have him erect artificial barriers to your competition, turning a formerly free market into a cartel, or guild. A capitalist doesn't fear competition -- but sadly, owning a small business doesn't turn you into a capitalist any more than going into a garage makes you a car.
Is there currently a problem with people who are consigning goods on ebay? If there is, is this any better than prosecuting the problem individuals? Just what real protection does it provide?
The government should stay out of everything as much as it possibly can. Almost every time the government gets involved in something unnecessarily, it is simply because someone sees an opportunity for more graft, the rest of the time it's because they are acting like overprotective parents.
"Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
What's particularly irksome is that this represents triple-taxing of the transaction. eBay consignment shops need a POP because people are more comfortable with that, and shipping an unsold item to sell it and then ship it again is just too expensive. So the business is paying taxes in the state in which it is incorporated. And possibly in all states in which its shops operate (I'm not familiar with the tax situation there). And certainly the individuals who eventually receive the shops' profits are taxed on income. The double-taxation of corporate income is reasonable because the corporate tax rate is low and incorporation provides concrete advantages which it is reasonable to pay for. I really don't see how this third layer of taxation is anything but an attempt by the states to suck a little more money out of the population without providing anything in exchange.
High-speed Road Trip (18.000KPH)
99% of the country? I call bullshit. I believe that far less than 50% of American households make even the slightest attempt at working out a budget. Furthermore, the debt numbers here in America prove that Americans are most likely to try to solve their "budget problems" by overextending their credit. We then vote in polititians who do the same. An "amazing" coincidence, huh?
Adherence to the truth is a form of disloyalty.