Business Licenses

[A18]

...

[Nym90]

It depends on the business, but when someone purchases a product, they deserve to know that it has met some basic standards of acceptability, and businesses that cannot meet these should not be granted a license to sell that product.

Obviously it must be taken on a case by case basis, but there should be some minimum standards that a business establishment must adhere to in order to be considered a reputable business. It is often difficult to impossible to determine at a glance by the customer whether or not these standards are being met, which is why we need to have those who have the time to investigate the issue and the expertise to know to look into it and see whether or not they are being met.

If you run a restauraunt, for example, you have to get a license, which entails having to show that you meet certain health standards. This is very much in the public interest, to ensure that restauraunts aren't going to make their customers sick.

[Gabu]

I don't have much to add to what Nym said.  Business licenses definitely have a point: they're an affirmation that whatever the business sells is safe to buy.  It is very much in the customers' interest that business are required to have them.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Business Licences have three main functions:

• Show the public that the business has net minimum requirements in yerms of skill and/or facilities for operating such a business.
• Show the public that the business pays its taxes.
• Give government the ability to enforce zoning regulations.

Now if you think that the above are not good things, then obviously you won't see the point behind business licences.

[A18]

Let's see...so if I'm going to evade state sales tax, all I would otherwise half to do is not collect it. Wait, but now I need a business license and if I didn't get one of those it would be illegal!

This makes sense how?

[John Dibble]

Depends on the business. I think it's a bit silly for things like hairstylists, but not for things like doctors where your life might be on the line.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Let's see...so if I'm going to evade state sales tax, all I would otherwise half to do is not collect it. Wait, but now I need a business license and if I didn't get one of those it would be illegal!

This makes sense how?

Not collecting sales tax due is illegal regardless of whether you have a vusiness licence or not, but if your business is deliquent in having paid taxes, you're not going to get a license for it in most places.  In addition, business licence fees are often used by local government as a source of what is essentially tax revenue, and you certainly aren't going to get the licence if you don't pay the fee!

[A18]

^Exactly. So it makes no difference; requiring a license doesn't make people comply with taxes.

^^For doctors, I agree that they make sense. But I mean things like opening a retail store

[stry_cat]

Any good doctor will have is degree on the wall.  The reputation of the school and of the hospital he is currently working at are better guides than a business license or the medical license.

Business licenses are just as pointless for other professions.  When I go to a McD's I know what kind of quality I'm going to get when I order a Big Mac and Fries.  There's no point in looking at the business license.  When I go to the hole-in-the-wall Chinese place across the street, I'd know what to expect by the fact that there are about 50 cars in the parking lot.  I could try the nicer looking place down the street, but there are no cars there.

When I shop at Target or Wal-mart, I know what kind of quaity and what kind of  service I'm going to get.  When I shop at the mom n' pop shop down the street, I can guess at what kind of quality and service by the "established 1959" sign.  They're not going to stay in business long if they don't provide a good product.  Their business licenses are just an added expence and paperwork that make it harder for them to compete.

[Nym90]

Any good doctor will have is degree on the wall.  The reputation of the school and of the hospital he is currently working at are better guides than a business license or the medical license.

Business licenses are just as pointless for other professions.  When I go to a McD's I know what kind of quality I'm going to get when I order a Big Mac and Fries.  There's no point in looking at the business license.  When I go to the hole-in-the-wall Chinese place across the street, I'd know what to expect by the fact that there are about 50 cars in the parking lot.  I could try the nicer looking place down the street, but there are no cars there.

When I shop at Target or Wal-mart, I know what kind of quaity and what kind of  service I'm going to get.  When I shop at the mom n' pop shop down the street, I can guess at what kind of quality and service by the "established 1959" sign.  They're not going to stay in business long if they don't provide a good product.  Their business licenses are just an added expence and paperwork that make it harder for them to compete.

Yes, but the reason that you know is because we have minimum standards of quality, and thus you don't have to worry about it, because you can rest assured that it's been checked out by those who know about such things and have the time to do it.

I see your point...brand names count for something. But if there were no regulations, what would be to stop someone from making their own restauraunt and claiming that it's a McDonald's? Anyone who wants to could just throw up a golden arches and sell Big Macs...except that McDonald's has a copyright on the name, and they'd sue their a** in court. But in order to be able to sue them for claiming to be a McD's, you have to have lawyers and courts...government, in other words. Same thing with "Established 1959". How do you know they are telling the truth? There has to be some minimum standards, and punishments for lying.

Yes, we've got a good system, but government is necessary to regulate and maintain it, so that customers don't have to worry about it, and can rest easy knowing that their products will meet minimum standards. Otherwise it would be "caveat emptor" for everyone, with absolutely no security or guarantee on anything.

[Nym90]

Any good doctor will have is degree on the wall.  The reputation of the school and of the hospital he is currently working at are better guides than a business license or the medical license.

Business licenses are just as pointless for other professions.  When I go to a McD's I know what kind of quality I'm going to get when I order a Big Mac and Fries.  There's no point in looking at the business license.  When I go to the hole-in-the-wall Chinese place across the street, I'd know what to expect by the fact that there are about 50 cars in the parking lot.  I could try the nicer looking place down the street, but there are no cars there.

When I shop at Target or Wal-mart, I know what kind of quaity and what kind of  service I'm going to get.  When I shop at the mom n' pop shop down the street, I can guess at what kind of quality and service by the "established 1959" sign.  They're not going to stay in business long if they don't provide a good product.  Their business licenses are just an added expence and paperwork that make it harder for them to compete.

Yes, but the reason that you know is because we have minimum standards of quality, and thus you don't have to worry about it, because you can rest assured that it's been checked out by those who know about such things and have the time to do it.

I see your point...brand names count for something. But if there were no regulations, what would be to stop someone from making their own restauraunt and claiming that it's a McDonald's? Anyone who wants to could just throw up a golden arches and sell Big Macs...except that McDonald's has a copyright on the name, and they'd sue their a** in court. But in order to be able to sue them for claiming to be a McD's, you have to have lawyers and courts...government, in other words. Same thing with "Established 1959". How do you know they are telling the truth? There has to be some minimum standards, and punishments for lying.

Yes, we've got a good system, but government is necessary to regulate and maintain it, so that customers don't have to worry about it, and can rest easy knowing that their products will meet minimum standards. Otherwise it would be "caveat emptor" for everyone, with absolutely no security or guarantee on anything.

[A18]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No one there shouldn't be a punishment for lying, or no minimum health standards.

They could start a McDonalds now and do that. Thing is, they'd get shut down and thrown in jail.

[muon2]

^Exactly. So it makes no difference; requiring a license doesn't make people comply with taxes.

I may not make them comply with taxes, but it can make for much better enforcement. Consider a liquor store that has fallen behind in taxes to the state. The state can go after the back taxes, but the process is lengthy and expensive to the government. I believe you don't want all your taxes spent on lawyers chasing ne'er-do-wells.

Now consider the impact of a liquor license. The state sends a letter to the city saying that taxes are in arrears. The city sends a police officer out to the store to post a notice that the license will be revoked in two weeks pending a hearing before the mayor. Perhaps not surprisingly, the store owner shows up at city hall on the day of the hearing with a copy of a certified check to the state for back taxes. The license stays in place, and relatively little tax money went to lawyer's fees.

It's quite a good way to get tax compliance.

[stry_cat]

Yes, but the reason that you know is because we have minimum standards of quality, and thus you don't have to worry about it, because you can rest assured that it's been checked out by those who know about such things and have the time to do it.

These minimum standards exist b/c the company wouldn't have any customers if they failed to meet the customer's expectations.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As you point out McDonald's would sue their a$$ and have them put in jail for trademark violation.  The court should also award make the criminal pay restitution to McD's.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Does the store have any local customers?  People in the community aren't going support people tell falsehoods.  You could check with the BBB.  Does the store look like it's been there since 1959?  These places all have a certain look and feel to them that even recent remodeling has a hard time changing.  There are any number of ways to check out their claims  most aren't any more difficult than just looking and talking to people.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I disagree. Government is the problem.  It uses things like business licenses and zoning to drive up the cost or prevent people from opening up competition to the powerful and influential.  Their minimum standards are not necessarily what people want and are often used to shut down the competition.  

Customers need to take some responsibility to make sure they don't get a bad deal.  It is not the government's job to do that.  If what the business does is fraudulent then there are the courts to handle that.  The customer has a brain and needs to use it.

[A18]

False advertising should definitely be illegal.