# Should painters be required to have a license?



## Ole34 (Jan 29, 2011)

anybody can paint so i dont feel as if PAINTERS should have a sepecial license.................another money grab by you know who


----------



## Gough (May 1, 2010)

Where I work, the licensing requirement is almost exclusively about insurance, both liability and worker's comp. The latter doesn't apply if you are a one-person operation (I almost wrote one-man, RCP, but caught myself). I used to hold a ticket in the neighboring state, and the rules were similar, but also included a bond.

In neither case did I regard the regulations as onerous and I think they serve to level the playing field, since all of the legitimate players have similar minimums for overhead. The rules also serve to provide some measure of protection for clients if a contractor damages their property or has a worker injured on site.


----------



## Florida11 (Dec 22, 2010)

RCPainting said:


> I know you enjoy using for debate, I prefer to use it for education and information.
> 
> I like to use it for all of that too, that is why I'm still here.
> 
> ...


I just put it all in red...


----------



## Florida11 (Dec 22, 2010)

Gough said:


> Dean was mistaken, licensing hasn't been required for the last 20 years after all, it's been required for 31. The requirement has been in place since 1980 ( Article 24 of Public Act 299 of 1980).
> 
> How do you know that the painters around where you work aren't licensed, have they all told you that? I know a number of PCs in my area fairly well, and I would only know if they're licensed if I looked it up online. You can do that in MI at:
> https://www2.dleg.state.mi.us/colaLicVerify/lCityCounty.jsp


 
Well I've talked to painters and asked them. They all laugh about it. Another time I went through the yellow pages and checked to see if these guys who were posting license numbers actually had them, cause like I said I was think where did they get them.. Guess what 90% of these numbers were made up, they didn't even have these licenses. lol


----------



## Ole34 (Jan 29, 2011)

sheep ''follow rules'' and then theyre slaughtered...............im no sheep


remember the goverment is our FRIEND, caugh caugh caugh cuagh.........


----------



## Florida11 (Dec 22, 2010)

Gough said:


> Where I work, the licensing requirement is almost exclusively about insurance, both liability and worker's comp. The latter doesn't apply if you are a one-person operation (I almost wrote one-man, RCP, but caught myself). I used to hold a ticket in the neighboring state, and the rules were similar, but also included a bond.
> 
> In neither case did I regard the regulations as onerous and I think they serve to level the playing field, since all of the legitimate players have similar minimums for overhead. The rules also serve to provide some measure of protection for clients if a contractor damages their property or has a worker injured on site.


The real playing field is already leveled, when it is just left alone. The free market will win everytime. Too many regulations and fees/costs, and fewer can afford the services, so a black market opens up. Having a heavy handed hand trying to create a market, is just the opposite of a free market. It's called a centrally planned economy, and every is worse off in the end for it, and soon become very poor and degenerate into pessants. The rules aren't going to protect anyone. Some homeowners don't care if a contractor has insurance, and some never ask. Some contractors show an insurance binder sheet, yet let their insurance accidentally or purposely expire. Everything comes down to "buyer beware".


----------



## Gough (May 1, 2010)

Mitch, I guess you've found another incentive to play nice on CT. Getting banned would be one thing, but you really wouldn't want anyone to drop a dime on ya....


----------



## Tinstaafl (Jan 6, 2008)

Michigan11 said:


> RCP, this is a forum, and I enjoy using it for what it is intended for...debate.


Perhaps you are mistaken. While the Roman forae of antiquity played host to many debates, they existed primarily for the purpose of government--which of course guaranteed that they were full of arguments and general squabbling. :laughing:

Today's internet forums for the most part are intended for information exchange, unless otherwise specifically stated. If your prime reason for being here is debate and controversy, I doubt that you will find the general membership to be very congenial hosts in the long run.


----------



## Workaholic (Feb 3, 2007)

Mitch and Ole34, what a duo. 

Mitch change your ways and go get legit. Help raise the bar not lower it.


----------



## Florida11 (Dec 22, 2010)

Tinstaafl said:


> Perhaps you are mistaken. While the Roman forae of antiquity played host to many debates, they existed primarily for the purpose of government--which of course guaranteed that they were full of arguments and general squabbling. :laughing:
> 
> Today's internet forums for the most part are intended for information exchange, unless otherwise specifically stated. If your prime reason for being here is debate and controversy, I doubt that you will find the general membership to be very congenial hosts in the long run.


haha - that first paragraph 

Yeah I know I know... I'm cool, not causing any trouble here. It's all good isn't it? You're a mod right?


----------



## Florida11 (Dec 22, 2010)

Workaholic said:


> Mitch and Ole34, what a duo.
> 
> Mitch change your ways and go get legit. Help raise the bar not lower it.


Well glad to see you too again, thought you were ignoring me again.... :blink:

and to your other question.. I raise the bar high enough already with every job I set my brush upon. Isn't that enough?


----------



## Florida11 (Dec 22, 2010)

Workaholic said:


> Mitch and Ole34, what a duo.
> 
> Mitch change your ways and go get legit. Help raise the bar not lower it.


You also told me to never listen to Alabamians


----------



## Tinstaafl (Jan 6, 2008)

Michigan11 said:


> You're a mod right?


Yes, but would that really make any difference? :laughing:

In a cordial exchange, as far as I'm concerned there is no mod badge. We're all here for information exchange, whether that's learning or teaching. If it takes a bit of debate to get a point across, that's not unreasonable at all.

But debate for its own sake is not what this and most other forums are about, and if it becomes evident that that is the only reason for someone to be posting here, the mod hat has to go on. But that's usually done in private, to maintain at least a semblance of decorum. :thumbsup:


----------



## Workaholic (Feb 3, 2007)

Michigan11 said:


> Well glad to see you too again, thought you were ignoring me again.... :blink:
> 
> and to your other question.. I raise the bar high enough already with every job I set my brush upon. Isn't that enough?


I was. 

No it is not enough Alan. You are not even providing the bare minimum. You should look over that link Dean gave you and do the right thing. Stop making excuses, It is not to late to get your license Alan.


----------



## Workaholic (Feb 3, 2007)

Michigan11 said:


> You also told me to never listen to Alabamians


That is true but do you see the conundrum?


----------



## Gough (May 1, 2010)

Workaholic said:


> That is true but do you see the conundrum?


I heard that all painters are liars, but the person who told me was a painter....


----------



## Florida11 (Dec 22, 2010)

Tinstaafl said:


> Yes, but would that really make any difference? :laughing:
> 
> In a cordial exchange, as far as I'm concerned there is no mod badge. We're all here for information exchange, whether that's learning or teaching. If it takes a bit of debate to get a point across, that's not unreasonable at all.
> 
> But debate for its own sake is not what this and most other forums are about, and if it becomes evident that that is the only reason for someone to be posting here, the mod hat has to go on. But that's usually done in private, to maintain at least a semblance of decorum. :thumbsup:


lol okay I gotcha. Yep. I think Gouch last post should be deleted. It's like he thinks this is Miami Vice or something


----------



## Gough (May 1, 2010)

Michigan11 said:


> lol okay I gotcha. Yep. I think Gouch last post should be deleted. It's like he thinks this is Miami Vice or something


The one about dropping a dime?? I'm a live-and-let-live kinda guy, I probably should have added a :jester:.

Gough


----------



## Florida11 (Dec 22, 2010)

Workaholic said:


> I was.
> 
> No it is not enough Alan. You are not even providing the bare minimum. You should look over that link Dean gave you and do the right thing. Stop making excuses, It is not to late to get your license Alan.


Okay Sean I will do it. Sean I will get licensed.


----------



## Workaholic (Feb 3, 2007)

Michigan11 said:


> Okay Sean I will do it. Sean I will get licensed.


lol Why don't I believe you. I'll see you around.


----------



## Florida11 (Dec 22, 2010)

Gough said:


> The one about dropping a dime?? I'm a live-and-let-live kinda guy, I probably should have added a :jester:.
> 
> Gough


Okay. I didn't know so that's cool. 




Workaholic said:


> That is true but do you see the conundrum?


Guys we need to pull ourselves together, this discussion has went of track, and we shouldn't have to ask the moderators to moderate for us. Therefore I'm going to be looking for responses that are in direct response to the subject material in my first post. Feel free to contribut to the discussion if you will Sean and Gough.. Also consider I will be licensed very soon.

With that being said. I believe licensing should not be a hinderence on a painter looking to seek his own happiness and destiney through his own free will. That was my stance and will remain my stance, yet we should all obey the rules.


----------



## briancreary (Feb 10, 2010)

Michigan11 said:


> If you would like to provide some information, please do, I'm waiting to here more from you and DeanV on this. For example, if it is required, what are the fines and fees if you don't have one? Do I go to jail? Who is enforcing these licensing laws you speak of? What is an M&A?


Here's where you search a license on the department of labors web-site

https://www2.dleg.state.mi.us/colaLicVerify/

Here's the State's definition of a licensed trade and what trades are included

http://www.michigan.gov/dleg/0,1607,7-154-35299_35414_35455-193789--,00.html

I'm not saying I don't totally agree or disagree with you. Trust me my blood boils everytime I get regulated again. I don't mind as much when the state does it because the local government has the right to regulate commerce, but my head catches on :furious: when the EPA does it. You are incorrect though that you do not need to be licensed, and your insurance companies indifference is a pretty simple answer "They want your money." There is probably a legal agreement you had to sign too that states that they are not liable if you are operating without a license. My insurance company asked BTW. I have taken three of these classes now and have been licensed since 2007; it is a requirement for painting, I'm not saying it to be argumenative or sound like I'm trying to belittle you, because, at the end of the day, what you choose to do with your business is none of my business. This does not change the fact that painting is a licensed trade in Michigan whether you choose to believe it or not.


----------



## Gough (May 1, 2010)

briancreary said:


> Here's where you search a license on the department of labors web-site
> 
> https://www2.dleg.state.mi.us/colaLicVerify/
> 
> ...


My insurance company doesn't seem to care if I'm licensed or not, at least they've never asked. I think there is probably some boilerplate in my policy somewhere, written in "Flyspeck 3" font, that says they won't cover me if I'm doing something illegal. OTOH, my state contractor licensing board is very interested in whether or not I have insurance. In fact, CGL & W/C (where appropriate) and the ability to fog a mirror are about the only requirements in my state.


----------



## Florida11 (Dec 22, 2010)

briancreary said:


> Here's where you search a license on the department of labors web-site
> 
> https://www2.dleg.state.mi.us/colaLicVerify/
> 
> ...


I believe it after now looking into it, and I appreciate the information you provided. I'm going to talk to some others around here locally and some paint reps and such to get their opinions to find out why so many don't have them. I am going to get mine very soon, researching it now. 

Also what state are you in? Michigan? If you are then why weren't you licensed before 07'?


----------



## briancreary (Feb 10, 2010)

I was working under a contractor who was licensed. That is totally fine, you just need someone with a license observing the project and the work the employees are doing. When I started my own, I got the license.


----------



## thom (Nov 3, 2006)

Here in NM painters are required to hold a license. We have mandatory workmens comp ins AND the contractor is obligated to collect sales tax and send it to the state. Yes, we charge sales tax on construction work, even houses. Not being licensed would also make you guilty of tax evasion. 

Many guys ignore the law, that doesn't make it right. They argue that following the law would make them non-competitive, that makes them part of the problem.


----------



## Florida11 (Dec 22, 2010)

thom said:


> Here in NM painters are required to hold a license. We have mandatory workmens comp ins AND the contractor is obligated to collect sales tax and send it to the state. Yes, we charge sales tax on construction work, even houses. Not being licensed would also make you guilty of tax evasion.
> 
> Many guys ignore the law, that doesn't make it right. They argue that following the law would make them non-competitive, that makes them part of the problem.


This is getting interesting. Wow, so what is the sales tax in NM that you collect? Even on the sale price of homes? Only new homes or even existing? 

On your last part. I am not sure I would agree with you, because there are several perspectives to look at it from. I understand those following the law, would be upset at those that aren't. On the other hand, a law that requires an extra 6% hike, is probably bringing down all prices when I think about it. Because once a tax like that is levied on a service, the black market would grow by gaining a competitive advantage(right or wrong) and the licensed painters following all the rules would now have to compete with the growing black market painters in the market, thus lowering the profit margins for the licensed painters who are having to follow all the rules and pay all the dues/fees/etc. Is that what you are seeing?


----------



## mehtwo (Nov 14, 2010)

Michigan, I love your signature:

_Credibility: Professional painter, self-taught for 15 years. Owner/operator. Specialty is selling and *learning from others* with knowledge in our field of business._ 

Maybe you could learn from it.

It never ceases to amaze me how there are people out there that debate with the intention of only getting people to side with them. You are right, you do have the freedom to do whatever you want. With that freedom comes consequences, especially if that freedom jeopardizes someone else's freedoms. That is why rules and regulations, insurances, etc. are in place to protect me and you. 

For example:
If Bozo the Clown *felt* like being a welder and decided to build bar joists for shopping mall without training, regulations, certifications, or inspections would you feel confident walking in that structure with someone you love(child, parent,etc.)? What if you or your loved one got hurt because of his ignorance and he had no liability? 

We can't have absolute freedom, that would be anarchy which would be scary. Even though you may feel that the painting industry doesn't produce a reason for this liability, you are dealing with chemicals and substances that could create a hazard to you or others. Hence, the regulations.

Regulations were created because there were situations where people were hurt and there was nothing that made someone else liable. Remember, liability is part of being a grown-up. 

There will always be people that choose to break the rules and take a *risk* with the black market contractors to save money. The guys who are licensed and insured, however, are the kind of people that care about themselves and their customers by protecting both parties. 

Like I said earlier, do what you wanna do....but there are consequences.:w00t:


----------



## Gough (May 1, 2010)

Michigan11 said:


> This is getting interesting. Wow, so what is the sales tax in NM that you collect? Even on the sale price of homes? Only new homes or even existing?


 
WA state does this as well. Contracting is considered "Retail Sales" and contractors pay the tax (~7.5 - 8 %, depending on the location) on the full amount of the contract, less the cost of materials on which they've already paid WA sales tax. When we'd do an interior repaint for $10K, that might mean $780 to the state.


----------



## rise-craftsmen (Dec 3, 2010)

Here is California you have to be licensed to fart! But I do think that painters should be licensed. It sets a higher standard. The painting trade is already tuff with a bunch of DIYers. Painters are tooken for granted so anything to lift the trade is good. 

But to had government does need to butt out...word to Milton Friedman!


----------



## griz (Nov 26, 2009)

HE!! YES. How else are they gonna get to work?:whistling:thumbup::laughing:


----------



## Gough (May 1, 2010)

griz said:


> HE!! YES. How else are they gonna get to work?:whistling:thumbup::laughing:


Oh well played, Griz. I was with a group of painters a while ago and the subject came up. One guy mentioned that painters should be licensed and another guy looked around and made the comment that they should probably be spayed and neutered as well....


----------



## MattRoefer (Mar 1, 2010)

I think you should have to have your journeyman's licence...


----------



## thom (Nov 3, 2006)

Michigan11 said:


> This is getting interesting. Wow, so what is the sales tax in NM that you collect? Even on the sale price of homes? Only new homes or even existing?
> 
> On your last part. I am not sure I would agree with you, because there are several perspectives to look at it from. I understand those following the law, would be upset at those that aren't. On the other hand, a law that requires an extra 6% hike, is probably bringing down all prices when I think about it. Because once a tax like that is levied on a service, the black market would grow by gaining a competitive advantage(right or wrong) and the licensed painters following all the rules would now have to compete with the growing black market painters in the market, thus lowering the profit margins for the licensed painters who are having to follow all the rules and pay all the dues/fees/etc. Is that what you are seeing?


We don't pay sales tax on the materials we buy for the home (licensed contractors have an exemption certificate, others do pay sales tax on materials) but we charge on the sales price of the home, approximately 7% depending on local jurisdiction. 

My feeling is, those who don't follow the law should be prosecuted for all the violations, there are many. 
.. no required workmens compensation
.. no charged sales tax
.. no permit
.. no contractors license
.. no required federal withholding tax
.. no required state withholding tax
.. no required social security withholding tax
.. no required employers social security match tax
.. no required medicare withholding tax
.. no required medicare employers matching tax
.. no required state unemployment
.. no required federal unemployment
.. no required quarterly employment filing federal
.. no required annual filing federal
.. no required quarterly filing unemployment
.. no required license bond
So, there are more than 12 criminal offenses that accompany being a scofflaw unlicensed contractor in my state. I would be satisfied with 30 days for each of those violations (or 1 year of jail for all of them) for each and every job done by an unlicensed scab. Yes, if you are violating your state law to cut corners and save a buck, you are a scab. 

Several perspectives to look at this from? There are exactly two, the one of the responsible contractor following the law because it is the law (even though he may disagree with it) and the other perspective is that of the scab. The scab decides which laws he will or will not follow based on it benefits/burdens him personally. These guys are not deserving of any respect, they haven't earned it.


----------



## Gough (May 1, 2010)

thom said:


> We don't pay sales tax on the materials we buy for the home (licensed contractors have an exemption certificate, others do pay sales tax on materials) but we charge on the sales price of the home, approximately 7% depending on local jurisdiction.
> 
> My feeling is, those who don't follow the law should be prosecuted for all the violations, there are many.
> .. no required workmens compensation
> ...


Thom, not sure how it works in NM, but it is possible in my state (ID) to be an unlicensed contractor and only be in violation of #4, No Contractor License. Some city building departments won't issue a permit to an unlicensed contractor, but a lot of them don't bother to ask or check. I know a handful of guys around here who do all of the other stuff by the book, but refuse to get a state ticket.

OTOH, I'd guess that you're right on 99 44/100 % of the outlaws; they're not bothering with any of the legal requirements that are part of the overhead of legitimate operators. Although I'm not sure about paying for their jail time. There must be another solution...community service..work camps...chain gangs?


----------



## Florida11 (Dec 22, 2010)

Well I hope this thread isn't getting out of the definition of meaning of this forum. I think it's an important topic in our industry to at least discuss the postives and negatives of a government putting their hand in our business. Don't all of you? How can we just see things one way and not see there may be some very negative outcomes from government intervention? 

You all know where I stand on this issue, and I see there are many that back all government intervention into our own businesses.

With everything in life, there is always a negative and postive reaction to any action. That is natural law and effect. 

So far, the positive list of effects from government intervention is:

Painting will be safer
Painting will be more credible with a piece of paper issued by the government
Customers will see painters as credible because they have that piece of paper
Nobody will get hurt because the paints are dangerous chemicals

What else can we add to this list that I may have forgotten to record for those that are pro-government intervention into our lives in this industry?


----------



## thom (Nov 3, 2006)

Michigan11 said:


> What else can we add to this list that I may have forgotten to record for those that are pro-government intervention into our lives in this industry?


I'm not a fan of government telling me how to do my job. That isn't the issue as I see it. Government is telling me, whether I like it or not. The issue then is, do I follow the rules, which is a responsibility of living in a civil society or do I say screw the rules and by extension screw all the people who follow the rules?

Responsible people follow the laws, if they don't like them they try to change them. Irresponsible people say screw it, I don't agree with it so I won't follow it. Fortunately for them, the guys who do honor the law with their contracting also follow the law by not capping the asses of the guys who say screw it, I'm going to take advantage of the guys who follow the law. 

Make no mistake about it, if you don't follow your states licensing laws, if you don't do required workmens comp and taxes, you have zero right to complain when someone steals your truck/trailer/tools for you are just as much of a thief as they.


----------



## Florida11 (Dec 22, 2010)

thom said:


> I'm not a fan of government telling me how to do my job. That isn't the issue as I see it. Government is telling me, whether I like it or not. The issue then is, do I follow the rules, which is a responsibility of living in a civil society or do I say screw the rules and by extension screw all the people who follow the rules?
> 
> Responsible people follow the laws, if they don't like them they try to change them. Irresponsible people say screw it, I don't agree with it so I won't follow it. Fortunately for them, the guys who do honor the law with their contracting also follow the law by not capping the asses of the guys who say screw it, I'm going to take advantage of the guys who follow the law.
> 
> Make no mistake about it, if you don't follow your states licensing laws, if you don't do required workmens comp and taxes, you have zero right to complain when someone steals your truck/trailer/tools for you are just as much of a thief as they.


Hey Thom, so you understand I'm not trying to hate or get anyone's roller stuck in a ceiling fan. The concept of requiring painters to be licensed is here now in most states, and I don't believe it's going to be repealed over night, let alone ever at this point in time. Seems since all the real jobs have left overseas, the states are now really going to try and get tax revenues by going after the only businesses and jobs that can't be shipped off, which includes painting. 

These painters out there without licenses are always going to exist, and I too want nothing but a level playing field Thom. Therefore, if we can keep an eye on the regulations/licensing in our field, we can pressure all our trade groups to make sure excessive costs are not added on to the procedure. That RRP law, is an example of something we don't need more of. You know what I mean?


----------



## Florida11 (Dec 22, 2010)

I found an article that I think all of you may want to read and look into. Our economy depends upon informing ourselves. *"Licensing Gone Wild"*

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703445904576118030935929752.html



> Amid calls for shrinking government, lawmakers across the country are vowing to cut regulations that crimp economic growth. President Barack Obama recently said it's time to root out laws that "are just plain dumb."


I'm glad to see these licensing laws finally being thought about after the recent rage of licensing "1 out of every 4" jobs now, even shampooers...

Also mentioned in the article was that less than 5% of all jobs were licensed in 1950 vs. 25% of all jobs today!

hmmmm... weren't we more well off as a nation back then overall?


----------



## Gough (May 1, 2010)

Michigan11 said:


> I found an article that I think all of you may want to read and look into. Our economy depends upon informing ourselves. *"Licensing Gone Wild"*
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703445904576118030935929752.html
> 
> ...


This strikes me as getting a little off topic, but by what measure were we better off in 1950?

Economically? Hardly, the average per capita income in 1950 was $17,000, by 2004 it was $30,500 (both figures adjusted to 2004 dollars)

Health? No, the life expectancy has increased by 10 years in the last 60.

Workplace safety? No, the workplace injury rate has declined steadily since before 1950.

I think you may be suffering from misplaced nostalgia.


----------



## bconley (Mar 8, 2009)

> Let me ask you this. Who are these people that have such power to tell you what you need to be learning in those continuing education classes you pay for, or the licensing exam itself?


These people are us, the citizens who elect representatives to make the laws we feel we need to be civilized and protected as a society.
A true democracy is where every citizen would vote directly on all matters concerning them. Not very practical when population is in the millions. So when the masses elect somebody to make decisions for them, it is called a representative democracy.

Get licensed its whats best for everyone.


​


----------



## MALCO.New.York (Feb 27, 2008)

Licensing is BS.

50% of the standing suburban edifices today were built by men without licensing. 

Licensing is more about taxation than anything else.

-Waiting for treehuggers to chime in...-


----------



## Dorman Painting (May 2, 2006)

I'm not for it because you would still have plenty of guys skirting around the license itself. Probably something like 50% would be licensed and the other half would never bother. 

The only thing a license would do is create some off the wall slush fund for some sleazeball politician to build a nest egg with. I'm sure the money accumulated from such license would never arrive at it's supposed destination. Who says a license would help the trade anyway?

I've been a painter for over a dozen years now, I know the trade inside and out, as many or most of you here do. If I really thought a license would help our trade, I'd be for it. There's TONS of unlicensed electricians/plumbers that hurt their trade, and those are trades that are supposedly license only trades.


----------



## Florida11 (Dec 22, 2010)

Gough said:


> This strikes me as getting a little off topic, but by what measure were we better off in 1950?
> 
> Economically? Hardly, the average per capita income in 1950 was $17,000, by 2004 it was $30,500 (both figures adjusted to 2004 dollars)
> 
> ...


Well, unfortunately I can't answer your question in here because it is off-topic. Maybe if you started a thread in "off-topic". I'm not nostalgic, I wasn't even born then! Bottom line is we are slowly figuring out that this topic of licensing has more to it, then many thought. It's a trap setup by those who want ultimate control of our lives. .. and more money


----------



## Florida11 (Dec 22, 2010)

Dorman Painting said:


> I'm not for it because you would still have plenty of guys skirting around the license itself. Probably something like 50% would be licensed and the other half would never bother.
> 
> The only thing a license would do is create some off the wall slush fund for some sleazeball politician to build a nest egg with. I'm sure the money accumulated from such license would never arrive at it's supposed destination. Who says a license would help the trade anyway?
> 
> I've been a painter for over a dozen years now, I know the trade inside and out, as many or most of you here do. If I really thought a license would help our trade, I'd be for it. There's TONS of unlicensed electricians/plumbers that hurt their trade, and those are trades that are supposedly license only trades.


Excellent Post. 

I always ask, who benefits?

Tax man
Another group of government thugs working in this licensing board.
The thugs who work in the regulatory agency created for this.
Insurance companies.
Those who provide the classes and get those fees.
Those who write the books for these classes.


What will grow up around the licensing, as it always does, is a larger and larger group of government thugs who will safe guard their jobs by increasing the fees and requirements. Trust me, this is economics 101. When after all is said and done, those who remain licensed will soon be finger printed and watched even closer for their own good. Once the trade itself slowly begins to wither and die, it will look nothing like it did when it all began, and none will be better for it than those bloodsucking thugs.


----------



## MALCO.New.York (Feb 27, 2008)

One need have insurance and workmans comp!


----------



## Florida11 (Dec 22, 2010)

MALCO.New.York said:


> One need have insurance and workmans comp!


Yes I agree, we should make sure to have proper insurance to cover ourselves well. Good point.


----------

