I will second Rick on that has anybody heard any word on this AFEC thing? And yes it was a big mistake to shut off debate on this to appease a loud minority of barely 10%.

I also heard a rumor that the small hysterical minority got to some Farnam execs and nearly jeapordized the AFAs Farnam deal. Does anybody know if there is any truth to this?
George

Farriers need licensing like working girls need social diseases. But, licensing is damn sure coming.

Not because it'll benefit farriers in any way, it won't; rather, because the several states are seeking new sources of revenue to make up for the tax money they've squandered on welfare programs benefiting individuals, special interests, and multinationals. The Great Unwashed Middle Class won't be able to sustain their tax burden indefinitely, which means sooner or later, the states will be forced to start taxing services to a much greater extent than they do at present. Doctors, lawyers, accountants, teachers, farriers, et al, will be seined up, their numbers counted the better to render unto Caesar, and some form of authority will be created to administer the whole SNAFU.

We can keep telling one another how great it is to be independent or we can band together and create a plan we can live with before the states cram one down our collective throats. All our silly, incessant, nattering about the AFA's "conspiracy" to license farriers is a study is shortsightedness because the AFA - or somebody - needs to be working on a model plan and have it ready to put in place as soon as the first legislation is written that will tax... er, license, farriers.

Legislators view taxing services as a cash cow that needs milking and we're going to be sucking hind teat if we don't have a plan ready for the registration, testing, licensing, administration, and enforcement of a program ready to plug in when some avaricious state legislature decides to tax farriers along with other service providers.

By the way Mr. Geist, as somebody who lives in both the South and a right to work state, I find the tone of your comments offensive and I break wind malodorously in your general direction.

George Geist wrote:
George you have a licence, go get your AFEC Farrier Licence and report back.
George Geist wrote: Fact only Mr. Geist, no rumors, thats the reason that the AFA never got their study compleated.

IMPHO, I wish it would have. After reading the deal the AFA did OK on it but not as good as it could have. Now that Farnam has sold I personally don't expect the new parent company Centeral Garden and Pet to renew the deal.

At any rate

-10 points to Mr. Geist. 5 off for a rumor, 5 off for drifting from the topic.

Tom Stovall, CJF wrote:
My business already has a "General Services" license with the Deleware Department of Revenue. If they wanted to tax services, I am already registered as a service business. I don't think the state would give a damn about whether or not I was able to pass a test to obtain a license as long as they could tax my revenue.

If the state decides to tax services, why would said state do anything to restrict the number of licensed farriers? That would decrease their revenue base. So for service tax purposes, a plain old general services business license needs no qualifications. Why should the government care whether or not I am qualified to practice my trade as long as they are getting a piece of my revenue?

Tom Bloomer, CF

Legislators view taxing services as a cash cow that needs milking and we're going to be sucking hind teat if we don't have a plan ready for the registration, testing, licensing, administration, and enforcement of a program ready to plug in when some avaricious state legislature decides to tax farriers along with other service providers. -TS

Tom Bloomer CF in gray

My business already has a "General Services" license with the Deleware Department of Revenue. If they wanted to tax services, I am already registered as a service business. I don't think the state would give a damn about whether or not I was able to pass a test to obtain a license as long as they could tax my revenue.

The taxation inherent to the registration/licensing of the various occupations will most likely be specific to the trade/craft/profession and will be in addition to the taxes/fees already required of any entity for doing business in a political subdivision.

If the state decides to tax services, why would said state do anything to restrict the number of licensed farriers?

Right now, under the guise of "protecting" the public interest, Texas licenses/certifies, amongst others, doctors, lawyers, veterinarians, pharmacists, accountants, barbers, beauticians, masseuses, vet techs, and peace officers: Can farriers be far behind?

That would decrease their revenue base. So for service tax purposes, a plain old general services business license needs no qualifications. Why should the government care whether or not I am qualified to practice my trade as long as they are getting a piece of my revenue?

The government doesn't care one way or another whether you're qualified to practice your trade. On the other hand, by creating a bureaucracy that administers the testing, licensing, and enforcement of legislation requiring farriers to be licensed, Big Brother can ultimately increase his revenue, spread his intrusive tentacles even further into our lives, and possibly create gainful employment for his shiftless relatives.

Y'see, in all probability, as soon as farriers are licensed, they'll be required to collect sales tax! Here in Texas, farriers now pay as much as 8.25% in sales taxes on a $12.00 set of shoes: How long before some bright legislator figures out that if the state could keep track of farriers while sanctimoniously pretending to be protecting the public interest, they could be collecting 8.25% of a $120.00 shoeing? Even the dullest of the doofi in Austin can count and $9.90 is an order of magnitude greater than 99¢.

Hot damn, I love a conspiracy!

Tom Stovall, CJF wrote: Tom,

I agree that it is not going to be designed to our benefit as it stands today. But I do not agree that it is just about new revenue. I am firmly of the opinion that when it happens it is going to be the animal rights, horse owners and associations that push it hardest as a way of benefiting horses and protecting owners.

Tom Stovall, CJF wrote:
That's why we have the Second Amendment. It provides us with the ultimate means of dealing with this kind of corruption.

TB

In the time since I began working at this trade, I have seen this issue come and go a few times. In fact, I estimate its a cycle of about once a decade. This is why most of the older guys dont get involved in this because they've seen it come and go too many times.

At this point it is a non-issue for all of the associations and there is no legislation pending anywhere.

I read Walt Taylors article which he wrote for AFJ back in I believe 2000. I then had the pleasure of meeting the man in California. At that time I told him he was right and I would support him on it. Good to my word to him I speak on behalf of it on the internet.

Tom Stovall says licensing is "damn sure coming". Although I have spoken on behalf of it I am somewhat skeptical that it would ever materialize.

Mr Stovall, what makes you so sure of this? Do you have a well tuned crystal ball or friends in your statehouse? Your declaration sounds pretty absolute.
George

George,

You know the old saying about death and taxes......

In Missouri they are gutting workman's compensation laws and have gutted the Head Start program. They don't care about injured workers and children, why would they license shoers except for the shear purpose of $$$$$$$. Certainly not for the horse. Tom hit the nail on the head; if they would implement licensing it would be only for the money.

Animal rights groups. The last confrontation I had with one of those groups they wanted to outlaw riding horses let alone shoeing one. If they have anything to do with it no one will be shoeing horses. Then licensing would definitely be moot and certification would be a thing of the past.

Wayne

Tom (Bloomer),
What taxes do they have in Delaware? With no state income or sales (to best of my understanding) is there anything you have to worry about besides federal? Just curious because I dont know.
George

Lets do a little math, Mr. Geist.
Fedral income tax-28 percent
FICA-15 percent
State Income tax-11 percent
City income Tax-3 percent
If a you billed a client $ 100 and he paid you $43 would you be happy?Then took more out for incidentials-say another $13. Would you work for them long?
I am sure I have forgotten one or two---before sales tax, gas tax, sin tax on beer, license plates,property tax, luxery tax etc-- I am already giving over 57 percent to the tax man--over half-
Then all of the hidden taxes- lets say 70 percent of my money ends up in some hucksters pocket---
Yeah, lets stand up and be counted, and let some more go to licensing, testing etc...
enough is sure has heck enough
Can anyone say "Golden Mean Society?" or perhaps" I do not consent!"
Jason

Jason,
All that stuff is beyond anybodys control. The income tax was thrown out as unconstitutional at least twice that I know of. To make it legal they passed a constitutional amendment which was never properly ratified thereby making it still illegal.

Over the past 20+ years we have seen large scale cuts in funding for various social programs, education, job training, welfare etc etc. Most people support the de-funding of a lot of these things.

The problem I see is that it has never resulted in any of the promised tax relief. Now if you want to be a tax protestor the legal arguments are technically right but you WILL go to prison over it. or worse yet be incinerated `a la Waco.

Wish I could give you a more optimistic outlook but there is none in that area outside of abolishing the federal reserve and getting back to the constitutional government we were founded upon. None of us will live to see that happen either.
George

George Geist in gray

In the time since I began working at this trade, I have seen this issue come and go a few times. In fact, I estimate its a cycle of about once a decade. This is why most of the older guys dont get involved in this because they've seen it come and go too many times.

At 64, I probably qualify as being an "older guy" and I'm somewhat dubious as to whether or not my generation is any more or less involved in the licensing issue than any other. Did I miss the poll?

At this point it is a non-issue for all of the associations and there is no legislation pending anywhere.

If farriers wait until legislation is pending, it will most likely be too late to have any meaningful input.

I read Walt Taylors article which he wrote for AFJ back in I believe 2000. I then had the pleasure of meeting the man in California. At that time I told him he was right and I would support him on it. Good to my word to him I speak on behalf of it on the internet.

Mr. Taylor champions the imposition of licensing, I don't. I'm in favor of having machinery favorable to farriers ready to set in place if/when some governing entity decides to license farriers. Prophylaxis, not imposition.

Tom Stovall says licensing is "damn sure coming". Although I have spoken on behalf of it I am somewhat skeptical that it would ever materialize.

In that case, do nothing. You may be right. Then again, you may also be wrong and the consequences of your being wrong far outweigh those of being right.

Mr Stovall, what makes you so sure of this? Do you have a well tuned crystal ball or friends in your statehouse? Your declaration sounds pretty absolute.

[Old fat guy mounts soapbox.] It has to do with the evolution of our society into one that would rather be politically correct than correct; societal tolerance for public education that graduates kids who can't read, write, or do basic math; societal acceptance of non-productive able bodied members, societal pandering to various ethnic groups, the "one world" economic mentality so dear to multinationals, 50 years of de facto immigration law non-enforcement, and two generations of folks who look first to the government for a helping hand instead of the one at the end of their arm.

Unfortunately, somebody has to pay the light bill and that somebody is the Middle Class.

In most states, the demand for services from non-productive members of society is increasing at a greater rate than can be provided by the productive members, which leaves state legislatures two basic choices: Cut services or seek new revenue. Cutting services, no matter how logical, presented, or well spun, invariably results in the loss of votes. Since the first duty of any politician is to be reelected, I'm fairly certain that farrier licensing is inevitable because licensing represents an untapped source of revenue to profligate state legislatures. More importantly, licensing of all trade/professional/craft folks would enable Big Brother to count our numbers and make the imposition of a sales tax on services much easier accomplished. [Old fat guy dismounts soapbox.]

Mr Stovall,
Thank you very much. I knew thats what you were all beating around the bush about and finally Mr. Stovall came out with it.

The issue of being put under greater scrutiny by the taxing authorities. Now come on wasn't that easy? Why couldn't anybody else come out with that?

Yes, this is a cause for concern. I have thought a lot about that myself and it is a legitimate cause for worry. I believe that no evidence can be found in other trades at least that I've heard of any increase in harrassment.

I also believe that the increased money coming to us will more than offset any increased costs.
George