Ohio Wants eBayers to Post $50k Bond 841
MacDork writes "CNNMoney posted a short article this morning about new Ohio regulations set to become effective May 2 this year. If you are in the state and selling on eBay, you will need to pay $200 for a license and post a $50,000 bond or face possible fines and jail time. Getting the license also requires a one-year apprenticeship. When asked to which eBay users this bill applied, the bill's author, Larry Mumper responded with these very specific guidelines.... "It certainly will not apply to the casual seller on eBay, but might apply to anyone who sells a lot.""
Typical government stupidity (Score:5, Insightful)
No.
Will this be a HUGE burden and inconvienence on the honest?
Yes.
Governments so often believe they can wave a piece of paper and behavior stops. Just like gun control, this will never stop a scammer but will punish the honest.
Congress might have something to say about this (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:rediculous (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, I can't see how this is anything other than a money-grubbing attempt by politicians keen to enhance their reputation by being on the "cutting edge".
Some politicians just cant cope with the fact that people can manage to run their lives without state intervention.
... and this why Ohio will always be a sh*thole (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Congress might have something to say about this (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:rediculous (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you lived in the US long?
Any source of revenue a city/state/federal tax can draw on, it eventually will.
If the law doesn't very specifically exempt anyone that sells under, say, $10k per year on eBay, you can expect to hear about this getting badly abused about six months from now.
Or do you really consider your typical neighborhood pot dealer; eight year olds who throw a temper tantrum in school; or people who write zombie fiction - All terrorists?
People worry about the "slippery slope" of bad laws because they can and will get applied as broadly as The Powers That Be can apply them.
Re:Typical government stupidity (Score:4, Insightful)
Meanwhile, all the honest sellers on ebay would be set back tremendously.
But all is not despair. Do you smell that? I do, it's the smell of legislation that will never be passed. This is just another one of those bills we keep seeing that has absolutely no chance of ever becoming law, serving the sole purpose of allowing the senator to say "LOOK I WAS AGAINST EBAY SCAMMING!!!!111" Honestly, it's sad that this is what our "representatives" spend most of their time doing, but hey, at least they have the sense not to actually pass it, right?
Good God I hope so...
-py
Modded insightful? Gun control stupid? (Score:2, Insightful)
Damn, I'll even burn some karma to say this.
Re:Typical government stupidity (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually when governments pass a law like that, they're usually trying to make money. Take cigarettes, alcohol, and in amsterdam, heroin, for example.
I think ohio has seen a big fat cash cow and has decided to get down to milk it at gunpoint.
Re:"might apply to anyone who sells a lot" (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not at issue. What *is* at issue is the $50k and possible "apprenticeship" that goes along with it. Ohio doesn't do that to other retailers or direct sellers; why is it singling out ebay sellers?
Re:Modded insightful? Gun control stupid? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:rediculous (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Modded insightful? Gun control stupid? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Typical government stupidity (Score:5, Insightful)
There are legitimate reasons to sell on ebay, but a gun is for shooting people with...
Aside from the fact that you're implying that there is never a legitimate reason to shoot something or someone (I know people with rattlesnakes in their backyard who would disagree with your calling hunting with a handgun "bullshit"...), a gun isn't just for shooting people with. There's a lot to be said for intimidation. You should know this since you're obviously scared of people having guns.
That's not my real issue with your shortsighted post though.
If no one has guns, no one gets to shoot people.
Let's skip being pedantic about bows, slingshots, etc... (It's probably easier to kill somebody at range with a wrist rocket than with a
You're a few hundred years too late. The cat is out of the bag. People have guns. Laws don't take guns away from anybody. Some people may comply with the law, and you may try to force compliance through law enforcement, but the guns are out there. The only people you're going to take guns away from are people who obey the law. Given that there will never be another time in human history when no one has a gun, would you rather that only the people most likely to shoot you with their gun were able to carry?
Re:I think this is a step forward, (Score:4, Insightful)
My impression is that there some new legislation regulating auctioneers in Ohio (not unreasonable), someone decided it might affect eBay sellers, the sponsor basically says he has no idea how eBay works, and guesses it might affect heavy users, and by the time it hits Slashdot, it's "Stoopid politishun regulates eBay, does'nt know how computars work!!!"
Re:"might apply to anyone who sells a lot" (Score:3, Insightful)
Applying your analogy to Ebay, once again, if you turn selling stuff on Ebay into a full time business, which MANY people do, Ohio has a right to license those people.
Ohio is not going to go after ever Tom, Dick, and Harry how uses Ebay. Only those who set up business on Ebay.
Re:calm down (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:rediculous (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem, of course, is that the government doesn't want to stay small because being in government gives you certain powers to act. For a good long while people kept this in check by paying attention to what was going on. Post-WWII, however, this country became a haven for drug-addled, overprotected retards because "The Greatest Generation" didn't want their children growing up with the hardships they had to face down.
Now, sixty years later, we have a country full of emotional trainwrecks who think the world is theirs for the taking because every authority figure they've ever known has either
a) been nothing more than an overbearing, rigid authority figure worthy of little more than angry rebellious backlash
or, more likely,
b) been a wet piece of toilet paper that always wanted to make sure they felt good and were never "hurt" by things like, for example, valedectorians reminding them that some people are just smarter than others.
Now the place is filled up with characterless assholes who don't have the balls to stand up to their government and don't care enough about what it's doing to shut down the corrupt portions. So you get stupid shit like this because some asshole in Congress decided he was going to flex his political muscle and go for a money-grab. 90% of the people this affects aren't going to know until it's too late, 9% aren't going to care, and the remaining 1% will be scoffed at for speaking up against it because, after all...
And we'll see whether or not Congressman Asshole fixes his bill. I'm betting he sends an amendment to the floor that never goes anywhere or eventually dies in committee because nobody cares enough about it to do anything more than create the amendment to try and silence the critics. Even then, if the critics come back, the blame for the bill's death is so spread around that the suits can just point fingers at each other until the critics get so frustrated they give up.
And this is how American politics (don't) work.
Re:Typical government stupidity (Score:5, Insightful)
So forget free market let's just regulate everything so that a few fat cats can make tons of money?
I never said it was right or wrong I was just stating the facts.
For some reason I don't think anyone would propose a bill with that intention let alone pass it.
Yeah right. Unless those people passing the bill were in or were paid off by those in the industry. C'mon, just look at how many regulations there are on lawyers. And look at what the profession of most of the politicians is. Think it's a coincidence? It isn't.
Re:rediculous (Score:5, Insightful)
"Besides costing $200 and posting a $50,000 bond, the license requires a one-year apprenticeship to a licensed auctioneer, acting as a bid-caller in 12 auctions, attending an approved auction school, passing a written and oral exam. Failure to get a license could result in the seller being fined up to $1,000 and jailed for a maximum of 90 days."
Perhaps intentional, but nowhere in the article do I find one iota of purpose, let alone legitimate purpose, for this law. Presumably this is some warped view of Consumer Protection(tm). But it seems that this is more of a regulatory program for the State to bring in reveues where it thinks it is getting screwed. Pay close attention to the fact that they don't call this a 'tax'. Taxes are bad and Americans hate them. Hence a $200 fee and a $50,000 interest free loan is provided for the government.
If this works out (e.g. the State thinks it's successful) you can damn well expect an eBay Lite law, which does the same thing less the requirement for certifications for ordinary people who sell their one used iPod or other junk. The objective here is the bond and the license. The Lite version of the law would most likely entail a license only at a reduced price of $25 or some silly amount to start with.
Then other states follow. So write your politicians now (especially if you are in OH or a surrounding state). That'll allow them to bear in mind your thoughts when this sort of stuff comes to the table, rather than trying to convince them after they're already interested in the potential revenue stream.
eBay is not an auction... (Score:2, Insightful)
eBay is a swoop and grab. It's the only way to "win". You stake out your desired item and hold off on bidding till the last possible seconds and hope your bid gets applied and is the highest.
I'm sure that if this is enforced on anyone it will be decided VERY quickly that eBay, like uBid, where the "auctions" are timed, are not really auctions and therefore not covered by this law.
Re:Typical government stupidity (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a dumb, defeatist argument. May as well give up locking my car, becuase there will always be car thieves, and if they want to get in they will. Not only that, but it propagates the myth that having a gun will somehow prevent you from getting shot - nothing could be further from the truth. How many people are shot with their own gun? How many people shoot themselves accidentally? How many people would not be shot at all if they just handed over their wallet to the mugger rather than try to be a hero?
Oh, and stop making out like "human history" and ends in the US. The US is the ONLY western country I can think of where it is common for people to own guns, the ONLY ONE. And, it has by far the highest rate of gun deaths. Now, I'm not trying to infer causality here, it may be a coincidence. But it's one big fucking coincidence if you ask me.
If you want to reduce the number of gun deaths, reduce the number of guns. Period.
Re:Typical government stupidity (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't let them make you back down. The possibility of needing to protect yourself from or overthrow the current or future government is another completely reasonable reason to own a firearm.
Re:How does the interstate commerce clause apply? (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, the fact that it was already regulated is immaterial, because the Constitution clearly states in Section 8 of Article I:
"The Congress shall have power...To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
Notice there is no mention of "but it must already be federally regulated" in there. Nope, if it goes between the states, it's federal territory.
-py
Re:sounds like a way for them to get money (Score:2, Insightful)
Create some fee,tax,commission, etc and you have a pile of money to graft & spent.
Free trade is a concept, but regulated & taexed trade is the goal.
I think there are few things the US government does does in the free trade area that do NOT ultimately hurt US consumers & business.
Protectionism,tariffs and such are drastic measures and should be used sparingly.
Competition is generally a good thing.
After all, selling something and not delivering, intentionally misleading, etc online auction scams are already crimes.
But the international & anonymous aspects of the internet scare the Politicians because it extends beyond their borders.
So tax & grab power is their answer.
Limit the US Government budget to less than 5% of the GNP.
It worked for the majority of this countries history.
Re:Typical government stupidity (Score:5, Insightful)
on that latter thing, its just a control factor, the illusion that "Everything will be better as long as *we* know who's doing what.". Total garbage, gross violation of the principles on which the nation was founded, but there you go.
Re:rediculous (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Typical government stupidity (Score:2, Insightful)
Before you ask yourself whether or not a new law will work, or how the new law will benefit the people, or what the basic rationale is behind the whole thing, ask yourself how does this new law benefit government.
Consider that government benefits even from outright failures. Typically, government failures are rewarded with more revenue, and even if the program is scrapped, they still reap the administrative costs and (perhaps even more valuable) the precedents for greater expansions of power.
Nobody really wants to believe that government is first and foremost concerned with its own interests, but the facts are on the table for anyone to see. History proves that governments have a tendency to expand over their lifetimes, and there's a very good reason for that: expansion of government benefits those in power.
Re:Modded insightful? Gun control stupid? (Score:4, Insightful)
To stop drugs, we should not go after the source, but the end user.
To stop guns, we should go after the source, not the end user.
Should we go after the big 3? After all, their vehicles kill far more people each year than guns.
I'll leave you alone now, I gotta go burn down some trees.
Protecting Established Businesses (Score:2, Insightful)
This is outrageous (Score:3, Insightful)
It's like saying that you have to be a doctor or a nurse to go to the hospital.
Re:Modded insightful? Gun control stupid? (Score:3, Insightful)
What have they done that's illegal?
Perhaps you've forgotten the Bill of Rights and how the right to bear arms is second only to the right to free speech.
Guns are not the problem - people who illegally use guns (and who don't care about laws to begin with) are the problem. Making new laws will not stop these people from continuing to illegally use guns. Just as new laws will not stop P2P file sharing, drugs, etc. People that break existing laws will not stop simply because there are brand new laws that further outlaw the illegal activities they are already performing.
I suppose you feel we should be out arresting the people who wrote Napster, Grokster, Kazaa, etc. because that has a chance of working?
Re:Modded insightful? Gun control stupid? (Score:2, Insightful)
It makes no sense to hamper the people who enjoy owning and shooting firearms (not to mention those who carry for protection) by trying to villify a simple tool and stop it's manufacture.
Re:Modded insightful? Gun control stupid? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, you're also cool with going after "legit" guys like Ford or General Motors? After all, convicted drunk drivers who aren't supposed to drive can still pick up keys and drive anyway... so we'd better deprive everyone of cars, just in case. Especially since more people are killed with cars than with guns. Oh: and don't forget baseball bats, kitchen knives, etc. There are all sorts of people out there "intending to break the law" with those tools, too.
Oh, wait: here's a thought. The vast majority of people who kill with guns are recidivist, repeat criminals. Maybe they shouldn't be walking around in your neighborhood in the first place?
By the way, what's your angle on going after the manufacturer of a legal product than can only hurt someone when someone picks it and deliberately uses it in that way? Check in with places like Africa and Central America, where gangs there routinely kill people with machetes, knives, and bottles of gasoline. Do you think that people intent on that sort of terrorizing care, at all, what you think about their chosen tools? I can tell you one thing they do care about: not knowing which business or household may be able to defend itself. In states like Florida, the right to carry has reduced violent crime. In places like Australia, where they've confiscated everyone's guns, violent crime has gone up, as criminals can act with impunity. The exact opposite of what the gun control people wanted (no matter how many times they're told that's what's going to happen).
If guns in personal possesion are such a problem, how do places like Switzerland, where there are more guns per household than in the US manage to have less violent crime? Not by regulating hardware, but by improving software: they have a real educational system with actual standards, they don't tolerate crime, and their culture doesn't celebrate thuggishness as a fashion. And, of course, violent criminals there know that there is a strong possibility of getting shot down like a dog while being a violent criminal: that has a wonderful impact on career choice.
Missing the point and Unintended audience (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, the person who sells on ebay is not an auctioneer. He is the owner of a product that has been taken to ebay to be auctioned off. EBAY is the auctioneer and probably the only entity covered by this law. Again, however, as laws get put on the books, their unintended audience will be found if it means that some fee can be extracted.
Imagine the in-humane despair and misery, you mean (Score:2, Insightful)
Could you really imagine a world where corporations were allowed to market and sell devastatingly mind-altering drugs to anyone who wants to use them, even those that don't?
Oh, wait, we have that already. So in fact, its not difficult to 'imagine the money they would make', because drug-pimps are making trillions, annually.. legally, even.
Re:Typical government stupidity (Score:1, Insightful)
Right, he was easy to find...the shooter hid in the trunk and had a cutout in the side of the car...good thing Superman could see with his X-ray vision...ass
Swiss people... (Score:1, Insightful)
AND they KEEP the damn assault gun AT HOME!
You US Joes want to carry the guns when you walk through a park in a Sunday afternoon (just in case a group of people decides to beat you), and THAT results in bloodbaths every single day in yankeeland.
I just don't want to see untrained people bearing guns at the amusement park. If you carry a gun, and you aren't in law enforcement, I prefer seeing you disarmed and driven to a precinct, instead of having a hard time trying to decide wich side of the law you are to see if I run or not.
Remember: GUNS KILL PEOPLE. Idiots and sons of bitches usually manage to have them kill the wrong people. But it's ALWAYS the gun that does it.
Cheers
because gun control IS stupid (Score:2, Insightful)
Scenario 1: Armed thug, by definition a lawbreaker, meets you in an alley. You pull your gun in defense. Two guns. Fair chance.
Scenario 2: Armed thug, by definition a lawbreaker, meets you in an alley. You have no weapon for defense. One gun. You are robbed and perhaps harmed, maybe even killed.
Explain to me how fewer guns, or legislation aimed at same, "is always a good thing" again? I see a glaring flaw in your reasoning.
You can't control "guns" with legislation; you can only attempt to control people. Which people will attempt to flout the laws? The ones most likely to hurt someone else by doing so. Which people will most likely obey? The decent person who will be left defenseless as a result. There's a reason Colt had a model named Peacemaker that many called the Equalizer. (Think about it.) One has to look no further than the District of High Murder Rate, ahem, Columbia, to see how well gun control works.
I know that gun control supporters are mostly well-intentioned people. But they're naively idealistic, too. You may desire a criminal-disarmament law, but be realistic - gun control laws only disarm innocent victims. The average hard-working joe has too much to lose by being caught with an illegal item, so he will comply, to his own disadvantage. The average no-good crook has too much to gain by not having a gun, so he will not comply, to his (increased) advantage (since everyone else is now disarmed).
Also, the most important reason for an armed citizenry is to keep government in check. Far more people were killed by government actions (often by their own government) during the 20th century than by crime. Any tyrant will seek to remove the means of effective revolt from his subjects. Learn from history or you'll be doomed to repeat its mistakes.
Re:rediculous (Score:2, Insightful)
Some of America's most sagacious and influential Founders warned repeatedly in so many words that American liberty and prosperity would be doomed once the people learned that they could vote largess out of the public treasury. The contemporary concept of domestic policy has become a veritable free-for-all among individuals, groups, organizations, corporations, universities, and state and local governments to see who can get the biggest check from the federal treasury.
The term "domestic policy" did not enter the American vernacular until after Franklin D. Roosevelt "broke the line" that James Madison spoke about in 1794. As reported by the Philadelphia Gazette and Universal Daily Advertiser in January of that year:
"Mr. Madison...was afraid of establishing a dangerous precedent, which might hereafter be perverted to the countenance of purposes, very different from those of charity. He acknowledged, for his own part, that he could not undertake to lay his finger on that Article in the Federal Constitution, which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. And if once they broke the line laid down before them, for the direction of their conduct, it was impossible to say, to what lengths they might go, or to what extremities this practice might be carried."
Remember, James Madison was not only a Federalist; he was the Chief Architect of the U.S. Constitution!
Re:Larry Mumper -- a BG check (Score:1, Insightful)
you watch too much television (Score:3, Insightful)
Good grief...stop watching so much TV. I've lived 31 years in "yankeeland" and have never been within 500 miles of one of your supposed daily park bloodbaths. They don't exist. What does exist, though never reported in the mainstream press, is the many many defensive uses of guns - many of which involve only the brandishing (not firing) of the weapon. Bloodbaths are "good news" - scaring off a two-legged predator isn't.
And people kill people. People have been killing other people long before guns existed, and if guns are ever completely eliminated from the planet they will continue killing others. A person serious about killing someone else will simply pick the best tool for doing so, which is most often a gun these days. But you know the best thing about guns? They're easy for anyone to use, including the smaller and weaker members of the population. They don't have to be the most likely victims any longer. Women don't have to live in fear of rapists. The elderly/infirm don't have to live in fear of thieves. Gays don't have to live in fear of bashers. Jews don't have to live in fear of anti-semites. I'd say a society that can make the weak innocent victims as powerful as the strong merciless aggressors is a very enlightened one!
Re:Modded insightful? Gun control stupid? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Typical government stupidity (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh please.
Isn't the goal to reduce the number of killings? Who cares how the people were killed.
Are you saying that you don't care wether people kill each other, just as long as they don't do it with a gun?
Your argument sounds like the same kind of trash that most activists spew. They hide their true agenda (lifestyle/culture/belief reform) behind some issue that tugs at people's heart-strings.
With the exception of accidental shootings, do you really think that not having a gun is going to stop violence? Do you think the lack of a gun is going to stop anybody that is intent on harming another person from actually doing it?
Re:calm down (Score:4, Insightful)
No law should be passed or obeyed when the legislaturalists have to say "don't worry, we won't target YOU with this
Re:It already passed (Score:5, Insightful)
Since 9 times out of 10 you won't be selling to someone inside the state...
Re:Typical government stupidity (Score:3, Insightful)
Adding this requirement for bonding will simply mean that people who are trying to do business legitimately through eBay find themselves with a new cost while the scammers will ignore this just as they're already ignoring the laws against fraud.
Market Constraints (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Imagine the in-humane despair and misery, you m (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah...you know, I'm sure there are some kids out there that are ADD...but, I'm really of a mind that most of them are just aflicted with what we used to refer to 'back in the day'...as being a KID. Seems like they want to medicate everyone these days. Most every kid I knew growing up, had wild spurts...getting into some trouble (nothing bad)...it was called being a boy. Now...if a kid is anything but comatose...they seem to want to drug them...
Re:Or you agreed w/ everything but the last senten (Score:1, Insightful)
Larry Mumper (Score:3, Insightful)
It appears he's become fee hungry, like the rest of Ohio's Republicans. With Ohio Republicans, like our lame duck Governor Taft [ohio.gov] -- who stands a snowball's chance in Hell of moving on to the U.S. Senate, we know him too well to advance him -- we get the worst of both worlds. Not only do we get the spend-thrift tendencies for which Republicans have historically been known, we get the urge to tax that is usually attributed to Democrats.
Basically with our current Ohio-brand Republican government in place, Ohio taxpayers get screwed, and we don't even get held close and kissed.
Re:Modded insightful? Gun control stupid? (Score:5, Insightful)
baseball bats are made for hitting baseballs, kitchen knives are made for preparing food and occasionally opening envelopes, and guns are made for moving little pieces of metal very fast into people.
A baseball bat is actually just an optimized club. Its purpose is to violently intercept a round, mostly organic object, and radically alter its inertia. The energy delivered is tremendous, and hence its appeal as an alternative weapon. But wooden clubs go way, way back - and no doubt first saw action as weapons: to hunt or defend against animals (bipedal and otherwise). Most of the hit-the-object-with-a-stick games go back to combat training or simulation in one form or another. It's just that the season lasts longer when both teams survive.
As for kitchen knives: a special case of all things with sharp edges. Originally put to use to: kill, main, dismember, chop up, etc. There's a reason that versions of knives (like machetes) remain such fearson weapons in the third world: they're cheap, effective, and you don't need to reload. And, you can claim that it's in your car because you need it at work (say, cutting cane or whatnot). But edged tools are designed to separate material into pieces. Who uses it, and on what, is completely beside the point.
Guns, on the other hand, are complicated devices of recent invention.
If by "recent" you mean "over 600 years ago," then you're right. But the since you cited the Bronze Age when talking about knives, it seems that 2000 years is your magic number for making a weapon natural, OK, and reasonable for everyone to have or use. I, though, think that any tool that projects or enhances your personal flesh-and-bone native self is pretty much philosophically neutral, and it's what you choose to do with it, not how old the technology is, that merits discussion. Certainly the crossbow, sling, spear, and other goodies go back longer than firearms... where do you draw the line? Maybe there's no point in doing so, and we should focus instead on culture, not culture's hardware?
they were designed on the concept of shooting people
Except, I use mine to put dinner on the table. I actually, literally, shoot things and then eat them. With some fava beans, and a nice Chianti. Seriously: quail, venison, turkey, pheasant... you can't eat better meat, and you'll never appreciate it more than when you (and your dog, in my case) get your hands/paws bloody along the way. It's a connection to reality that most people never, ever make. And the tools I use to quickly dispatch game are guns. Not pointy sticks, not deadfall traps, not poison, not fire, not clubbing over the head - nope: high speed lead objects, some applied physics, and dinner.
I've also used a gun to run off a seriously broken, drug-addled person that was beating our sliding glass door at 2:00AM. I have no doubts that the city police would have been 15 minutes arriving on the scene, and the guy's behavior was truly frightening - and likely to wind up in several people getting hurt. Brandishing a shotgun like I meant it took care of things, and the police found him sneaking out the back of the neighborhood's woods about 30 minutes later. He was trying to get into our house because they were already looking for him, and he knew it. I can't imagine the consequences otherwise, but the same tool that I use to put tasty dinner on the table helped keep that guy out of our house. And should he be out on the street again (no doubt he is), I'm sure that somewhere in the back of his mind is the thought that he'll never know when some house he might want to invade is going to be the end of him. That's a deterrent, and it works just as well on the neighborhood scale as it does internationally.
Guns are fundamentally different from the other items you mentioned, which is why they're treated differently.
But they're not so much, really, and to the extent that they are, it'
More like techno-challenged stupidity (Score:3, Insightful)
What on earth does bid-calling have to do with selling stuff on eBay, where you never see or hear the buyers' spoken or gestured responses, but only a final high bid as determined by a computer?? That alone tells me that whoever thinks this applies to eBay sellers is weak on the concept. In fact, eBay ITSELF is the "auctioneer" here, and the seller is essentially the same as someone who is *consigning* items to a meatspace auction.
I agree that it smells strongly of "let's find another point to extract money from our constituents' wallets". It won't impact scammers one bit.
Re:Larry Mumper -- a BG check (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the entire concept of "double taxation" is a meaningless distinction tossed around by people who think they're entitled to freebies.
Would you be happier if, rather than taxing you 10 times at 5% your government taxed you 1 time at 50%? I'll assume the answer to that question is no. Perhaps it might be a better use of funds and streamline the taxation process, but taxes are broken down and doubled up because Americans have the bizarre notion that taxes are money wasted.
Taxes are not money wasted. They are the dues you pay to live in a civilized society. Education, Defense, Crime Prevention, Transportation, Infrastructure, these are all programs and benefits funded by your tax dollar.
This is exactly what the founders of this nation were against - all these freaking taxes!
It's good to know that you didn't pay attention in American History or Civics. The founders of the United States were, at least in word, against the concept of governance without representation. They were irritated that a bunch of people who didn't represent them were making laws about how they should live their lives and taking their money to do things that they never benefited from.
They weren't against taxes. Even the Articles of Confederation, the document most against the concept of taxation in the legal history of the United States allows the Congress "to ascertain the necessary sums of money to be raised for the service of the United States, and to appropriate and apply the same for defraying the public expenses."
The government can tax you on whatever it needs to tax you on. It's your government. You get to vote and decide what needs to be done. At least, that was the plan. There is a whole mess about campaign finance reform, but we'll touch on that later.
Fundamentally, it is a meaningless distinction as to how the government gets your money. Taxing your car or taxing your income, it's all the same thing. About the only difference is how taxes impact different portions of the population, but you seem unconcerned about that.
I suspect that your key issue is not how the government gets your money, but that it gets it at all. I suspect you are of the opinion that you shouldn't have to pay taxes because you don't like social programs like Welfare, Medicaid, etc.
Personally, I don't benefit from any of those social programs. I hope I never have to. That said, things might not always be a rosy for me as they are right now. Things can get bad, really bad really fast. I want those government programs in place so that, should catastrophe strike, my family and myself are taken care of.
I think it's a crime that in the leading agricultural producing nation on earth, children are hungry.
I think it's a crime that, in the richest nation on earth, families can't afford to send their children to college.
I think it's a crime that the US spends more money on porn than foreign aid. That we spend more money per capita on coffee than the per capita income of more than 2 Billion people.
The United States has taken a culture of independence and turned it into a culture of materialistic consumerism. We've gone from "I don't need your help" to "You can't have my help."
I can understand not liking income tax forms, not liking to fill out all the paperwork, not liking to deal with the red tape that comes from doing business with the government. That said, taxes are necessary to create government and, well, you get what you pay for. No taxes means no government.
As Thomas Hobbes once famously wrote, Without government, "the life of man [is] solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short".
Re:Modded insightful? Gun control stupid? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm going to repost something I wrote elsewhere in this thread:
I think this is especially pertinent to your post, since I think that the reasons handgun control works in places like Hong Kong and Japan is because the people there don't value the recreational possibilities of a handgun like we do (in this case, target practice. But I have heard of people who have hunted with Berettas).
Re:Modded insightful? Gun control stupid? (Score:3, Insightful)
But here in the US, people who use guns illegally (say, to threaten or kill someone) also are supposed to go to jail. The problem is that people like that are frequently right back out of jail, and no less sensible (if not actually worse) than when they went in. We're talking, here, about people who choose to act violently, without regard for the consequences. You say that you may have the occasional Swiss who is mentally broken enough to reach for the gun - but that it rarely happens. I'd suggest that the mentally broken people are just as rare in the US, but it's the celebration of violence and expectation of leniency that fuels the problem - not which tool the violent person is going to choose to use. Just the other day, we had a crazy domestic situation where a guy threw his daughter off a bridge onto a highway, and then followed her (amazingly, she lived, happily, he did not). Might that have ended differently if he'd had a gun? Possibly. Is that (other than being dramatic) a common problem in a country of hundreds of millions of people? No. Not nearly as common as reckless driving, knifings, beatings, and other non-gun-related injuries and deaths.
More stupid Ohio Laws (Score:4, Insightful)
One other stupid thing they are doing here in OH is they want to charge parking at State Parks. 5 per day or a pass for 25 that let's you park at any park. I believe they charge out of staters more. Yep....just make people NOT want to come to your little used State Park.
Ohio's governor is so bad for you politically if your a republican, that GW did not want to even be seen with him.
Re:Typical government stupidity (Score:3, Insightful)
It also talks about a one year apprenticship with a licensed auctioneer and to participate in auctions around the State. I think this legislation is for those people calling out bids at an auction (auctioneers). This would not apply then to the person having their items auctioned. I can see Ohio requiring a $50k bond and a one year apprenticeship for people selling a teapot through an auction. This article is making some rather erroneous claims.
The fact that Ebay thinks it doesn't pertain to them could have to do with the fact that no person is doing the auctioning, a program is. Possibly worst case Ebay would have to put up a bond. But having a terminal connected to Ebay participate in auctions around the State is a interesting image.
It would all depend on how the law was written. The article seems to think that it does pertain to people who are selling through the auction process but they don't supply any details of the language of the bill (that was passed) that would suggest that it does.
Re:One possible reason (Score:2, Insightful)
I wish I was joking.
Re:Larry Mumper -- a BG check (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, yes. It makes the big picture clear, so the public knows the real price of government. When nickel-and-dimed to death, the public often fails to do the math and acquiesces to what it otherwise wouldn't.
They count on this, of course.
$0.02,
ptd
Not just taxes (Score:3, Insightful)
"Besides costing $200 and posting a $50,000 bond, the license requires a one-year apprenticeship to a licensed auctioneer, acting as a bid-caller in 12 auctions, attending an approved auction school, passing a written and oral exam."
If it was just taxes, I'd think that they woulnd't bother with the apprenticeship, test, etc.
supreme court ....what say ye? (Score:3, Insightful)
The FTC regulates that. This law would
give Ohio power that the Federal government
has. So IMHO (IANAL) this would be un-constitutional. Whay say ye, supreme court?
Re:Modded insightful? Gun control stupid? (Score:3, Insightful)
In America, the problem is that push tends to be for gun rights without responsibility from one side, and onerous, one-sided restrictions from the other. Personally, I don't have any problem with assault rifles being issued to any one who participates in a well regulated militia. Hey, that sounds familiar...
Re:The swiss have figured out (Score:3, Insightful)
The argument that you say works for you (that of personal responsibility trumping someone else's mis-use) doesn't fly with people who see danger everywhere. Well, they see danger in things that "look mean," and ignore dangers (like distracted soccer moms with minivans full of kids) that are just as likely to cause injury, but which fit within their understanding of risk in the world. That Hummer is no more dangerous than a loaded church van, but guess which one is "alarming" to the same people that we're talking about here? They're a muddleheaded audience when it comes to the basic principles, here, and probably have never hung out with sport shooters, hunters, etc - often some of the nicest, sanest, and safest people you'll ever meet (and the most demonized, for no reason).