Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[zeeder]

Doctors, Lawyers, Pharmacists, Hairdressers etc....all have license. In the Free State licensing will become unneccessary? Will this affect professionals decision to move? Without licensing could a mechanic become a doctor? Could I?
  It took 6 years of college to become a pharmacist but I have no problem getting rid of licensing. I just want to know the alternatives, if any. I have not really thought about it much.
  It is Federal Law that prevents you from buying allegra OTC. However, I believe states decide prescribing rights. ( I wonder if the state could give hairdressers prescribing rights lol)

Zeeder

[JasonPSorens]

I definitely think licensing laws will be something we target right from the beginning.  These are decided on a state or even local level.  We still need to have structures in place to punish fraud: for example, if a doctor claims to be an MD but isn't he should be sued, perhaps jailed.  But preventing people from operating without a license is merely anti-competitive.  Let people choose!

I realise I'm preaching to the converted here...

[zeeder]

Thanks Jason I really never understood why i have a license. Isn't a diploma enough?
  My last comment was a suggestion on how to get around Federal Law. You can't make everything OTC, but you can give prescribing rights to as many healthcare professionals as possible. This would decrease costs. In the end, would prescriptions not be done away with(requireing them to purchase meds that is). That is a federal matter but I am curious. I believe you should be able to buy as much allegra, zantac 150, cardura, atarax, celebrex etc.... as you want. No one is going to "try out" blood pressure meds. Prescriptions are just ways doctors force patients to come to them.
 Maybe, you guys need a health care team  Eventually anyway. I will gladly be apart of it, if i can convince my wife and family. I got 5 years

Zeeder

[JasonPSorens]

  My last comment was a suggestion on how to get around Federal Law. You can't make everything OTC, but you can give prescribing rights to as many healthcare professionals as possible.

Right - it's a very clever idea and something we should try if possible.  I admit I haven't studied this area very much.

[Midway76]

In my view, most professional licensing is a means to restrict free enterprise by otherwise qualified persons and have been enacted as a means to protect the group writing the "standards for licensure".  As a Hypnotherapist and Massage Therapist, I have found this to be especially true.  Making a medical doctor or an attorney get a license does not ensure you will receive quality service.  With 2 master's degrees in different areas of counseling, getting a license would not make me a better counsellor nor does the absence of one make me a poor one. (It does keep me from working in those fields under the current system unless I become a "pastoral counselor")  I agree that systems of punishing fraud and malpractice should be sufficient and let the marketplace drive the rest.

[heyerstandards]

Licensing is the primary method to restrict the supply of competitors.  (and drive relevance and revenue to the state.)

All livelihood licensing should be abolished.  You can hear the sqealing! "Who will protect the people."

Frankly, the professions themselves will establish their own standards. For instance people will quickly learn to only do business with CPAs that are members of the American Institute of CPAs because they have higher continuing education levels and internal periodic review of members.

People will have to be disabused of the notion that just because someone has a "license" they are somehow competent to provide a service.  All it means they have passed the bare minimum standards and PAID A FEE TO THE STATE.  

Godspeed us.

[jessica_420]

Excellent, another pharmacist!  Elimination of professional licensing would be one of my highest priorities, as well.  
Good idea about starting out by expanding prescribing privileges, but the main opposition to this will be the AMA, not the state government, per se.

[Geoff]

My first post!

One of the things I am researching is the licensing procedures in my profession. I am a small businessman owning a Pest Control Company. Should I move to the designated state I will of course try to earn a living doing what I do best.

The EPA requires every state to license Exterminators. Each state designates an agency(Usually the Dept of Agriculture or Environmental Conservation) that tests and licenses the Exterminators in that state.

Some states are very liberal and others are tough to get a license in. I will research each state of the 13 to determine how each goes about licensing .

I agree that licenses are just a means to tax  working people and control who works in that particular state.

Some states license everybody (Like New York) and others try to keep outsiders out (Connecticut and Florida in my own experience).

I am presently leaning towards the western states as they have a history of encouraging new businesses. Unlike the northeast where current businesses try to protect their territory.

Should be interesting.

BTW I am currently planning a move out of NY,  hopefully within the next year. Will probably go to Pennsylvania temporarily.

This project may be just what I am looking for.

Happy to be here!    

[Jeffersonian Democrat]

Interesting question, as a CPA, I'm licensed by the State of Texas.  Every state has different requirements for licensing CPA's, some liberal some very restrictive, in fact I moved to Texas primarily because of more restrictive requirements in Mass.(they required audit hours and I was only interested in tax work).  Since the process is administered by the profession (AICPA) and the state only issues the license when it receives the certification from the profession, I'm not sure how this would be subject to change in the FS.

[heyerstandards]

Jeff Demo-- glad to see there's another accountant in the mix.

You're right, the AICPA tells the state when to issue the license. But why does the state issue the license?  Why not just have the public look for the "AICPA member" logo on the stationery of the accountant?  The only purpose of the license is to add fee revenue to the state (and act as a protection racket for the industry)

[Jeffersonian Democrat]

Heyerstandards,

I don't think you can be an AICPA member unless you are a licensed (by the state) CPA.  You are correct it is mostly a fee generating system.  There really is no difference in the work a person is capable of doing whether or not they have the initials, except for public companies, but the people have been conditioned to look for the initials.  People think that the initials will make a difference when it comes to an audit, which is not necessarily the case.

Anyway my profession as a tax accountant is one I would like to see made near extinct in the FS.  I don't mind looking for honest work.

[cathleeninsc]

I knew as early as my tax courses in college that I couldn't work with a system that I didn't believe in. I made it clear to my employers over the years that tax work wasn't going to be the best use of my talents. It worked for a number of years but with corporate downsizing, more and more work fell on the few CPAs in the firm. Next thing I knew I was spending most of my time and much overtime on tax work. My health and attitude suffered so much that I left the workforce. I gained peace of mind and they lost an honest worker.

Cathleen in SC

[heyerstandards]

Honest work... hear! hear!  

1) The AICPA writes the exam.
2) The state hires someone to administer the test to "qualified" candiates.
3) The test is graded.
4) If the test is passed and if other subsequent fees are paid, voila, a little slip of paper arrives saying you have a state license.
5) You then send the AICPA your slip of paper (with another check for $150 or so) and you become a member of the AICPA.  

My thought is that since the AICPA writes and grades the CPA exam, the only function that state has is to collect another fee.  The AICPA should be

True, people do look for the letters: CPA.  We just need to train them to look for "AICPA" or [FS ICPA] (Free State Institute of CPAs.).  ;-)

Knowing what I know about the true nature and intent of the tax system and IRS, I too only do a few returns for friends.  I can barely  stomach to see what is wasted.

"But I got a refund... .yippee!"
Rubbish.

[Jeffersonian Democrat]

Heyerstandards & CathleenSC

I've only learned about the great fraud and deception in the last year.  Good grief I got a Masters in Taxation and swallowed it up hook line and sinker.  One day on the road to Damascus a blinding light...  anyway I'm more than a little peeved about the whole UNCONSTITUTONAL system.  People wonder why we can't have tax simplification.  Cause folks if they ever simplified it, you would see that the Emperor was naked.

[heyerstandards]

I think one of the most telling "proofs" of the fraud is that through all of my tax textbooks and CPA review course materials, those liable for taxes are ALWAYS referred to as "TAXPAYERS."

Well, no duh, the uninitiated will respond.  But in no example or problem did the text say "everyone" or "citizens"or "people" or other generic terms.  "Taxpayer" is a term of art; it has a very specific meaning.

Pick a theory on why that label doesn't apply to you.  There are a lot to choose from...

To the rest of the accountants on the boards:  how much do you think we should charge to provide this advice to citizens of [Free State]?