City licensing

  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #26
Scam or no scam I think I can work with it and use it to my advantage.
 
I only have to carry a county license here and renew every 5 years. Mariposa hates red tape and tries to KISS. If you keep the business in your sir name you don't even need one. So Stephen C. DBA Stephen C. does not need to file for license. Now when I filed my FBN and published it... I got calls and landed business. I will have to publish it again next year I think. I have to check with the county. Only fee is for the FBN and a paper work fee at county, about 100.00. So yes it gets me business. :)
 
They are required in all the cities and the counties here but no one checks. It's $50 or so a year for each one. Mine have all expired. Basically they want your contact info and your fifty bucks in case you screw one of their residents over. Some guys will try and put that number as their contractor's license number.
 
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #30
Some guys will try and put that number as their contractor's license number.

You mean you still need a contractors license? Geesh.....when will the insanity ever end? Do you get a contractors license if you have subs who work for you?
 
Here I buy one license that is inter-municipal. $190 a year covers my whole working area. Yup beaurocracy bs. Atleast it's a write-off. I don't sweat things like that. They're a cost of doing business and therefore should simply be incorporated in your rates.
 
The contractor's license is the main one. The only time I needed a business license was when I tracked up the lawn in a city park with my truck in Escalon, while the public works guy was chewing me out he made me go down to city hall and get a business license for $40 if I remember right. I once got a letter from the city of Oakdale saying it had come to their attention that I had been doing business in their town and I wasn't on their list of licensed tree service companies. I sent my check in and haven't heard from them since and that has been a couple of years. I would probably have to get six of them to be legal beagle. LIke you say it could possibly lead to some city work at some point.
 
What is your take on your local city licensing?

Mumbo jumbo, creeping fascism ....and yeah it increases biz.


I disagree, Stumpy. It is not 'creeping fascism', it is simple strong arm/take the money 'cause you can robbery.


Imagine walking into a neighborhood and having a guy brace you against the wall (with plenty of backup) and tell you you have to shell out some coin to 'be safe' while in the neighborhood.

Same deal with city lic.


UPS doesn't have to pay, FedEX doesn't have to pay. Just the smaller guys.
 
You mean you still need a contractors license? Geesh.....when will the insanity ever end? Do you get a contractors license if you have subs who work for you?

Yes, that makes you a general contractor. All subs must have a contractors lis. too. There was a guy here that told his employees to go get a city business liscence so he could pay them as subs. Doesn't work like that, he is outta business now
 
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #35
thanks for the heads up on the contractors license. I will need to keep that on my radar. What about 1099 tax forms? Is that similar to the whole subcontractor thing? Anyone know if this sort of thing differs state to state? Lots of good info here in this thread for me, thanks a lot.
 
According to old monkey it is not required in Idaho, if you jusm the border they can hit you for 5k but not usually till several occurances
 
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #37
According to old monkey it is not required in Idaho, if you jusm the border they can hit you for 5k but not usually till several occurances

Are you speaking of the contractor thing?
 
I disagree, Stumpy. It is not 'creeping fascism', it is simple strong arm/take the money 'cause you can robbery.


Imagine walking into a neighborhood and having a guy brace you against the wall (with plenty of backup) and tell you you have to shell out some coin to 'be safe' while in the neighborhood.

Same deal with city lic.

My sentiments exactly. It's nothing but "selling" you "protection" that you wouldn't need to begin with if it weren't for the thugs "selling" you the protection. They ought to at least wear masks, if not from shame, at least it would identify them as what they are...the BAD GUYS. Hey, Frank and Jessie wore masks didn't they?
 
Pete, as of this point we do not need contractors licenses. They just introduced licensing for home builders and such around five years ago and it is just a fee and no test. Idaho is WAY behind other states in terms of licensing professionals. I don't see contractor licenses in our future.

Edit: I ran into the city forester at the grocery store this afternoon. I mentioned this thread and you. He said he enjoyed watching you and the "new gear" you had. What new tools did you pull out? To him, licensing was just about guaranteeing a certain standard of tree work. He saw as more of a help to those companies licensed than to the city, especially as it is so cheap. He told me to wait to get licensed until after the first of the year to save money.
 
We have a lot of charlatans passing them selves off as tradesman Justin. Some basic standards are helpful.
 
We do too Darin, and some flat out crooks with a squeaky clean contractors liscence
 
Yeah, certifications have limitations. Still, its not a good reason not to try.
 
It's a lousy reason to try, Darin.

"Hmm, we have a problem. Other states have proven that government oversight, taxation and regulation do almost nothing to solve the problem but it creates lots of red tape, worthless government jobs, endless hassle that cannot be eliminated after the fact and it's all paid for by taking money from working people. Oh heck, why not try it? What harm could it do?"
:roll:
 
I agree wit Skwerl here. Northern Ca. has last I checked, 2 people who enforce the contractor laws. That is to say they go around to job sites and check lic.

Largely revenue enhancement. May have started out as a good idea, but has turned into what Skwerl said.
 
Your opposed to standards for professionals, contractors licenses, real estate licenses, bar certifications, etc? You're opposed to things like building standards for houses? Have you ever lived in a country that didn't have all of our certifications and standards? Sometimes rules and regulations go too far, the answer to that isn't get rid of them.
 
I agree wit Skwerl here. Northern Ca. has last I checked, 2 people who enforce the contractor laws. That is to say they go around to job sites and check lic.

Largely revenue enhancement. May have started out as a good idea, but has turned into what Skwerl said.

That California Contractors have to take a test puts them ahead of Idaho Contractors who just pay something like $200 and then they let them lose on the populace.
 
Darin, I'm not opposed to standards. I am opposed to more taxes and red tape which does nothing to address existing problems. Why do you assume that more taxes and bigger government equals higher standards?
 
There is very little enforcement OM. The contractor's test for a limited specialty tree service does not include any tree related or industry questions it is contractor's law only. There is a criminal background check and it is mostly for fraud related or violent felonies. You are required to post a bond for the to be in good standing. This whole thing is pretty much aimed at the building trades and tree/landscape guys are included. If your WC policy lapses they notify the board and your license is suspended. It does tell you a little about a company if they are too lame to have one. I really don't know what city licensing accomplishes.
 
Back
Top