The Saving Advice Forums - A classic personal finance community.

Should Feds nationalize licenses for more revenue

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Should Feds nationalize licenses for more revenue

    Keep state licenses but also add a Fed registry and add fees.

    1) Doctors can practice in all 50 states by telemedicine.
    2) Driver's licenses.
    3) I'm a social worker (MSW) but not licensed. With an LCSW it would only apply in California but my skillset would applicable in all 50 states.
    4) Lawyers maybe can't due to differing state laws.
    5) Real estate agents?
    6) Plumbing license which I once held in Hawaii. Western states are governed by the Uniform Plumbing Code so I would have been able to work in Washington St, Oregon, or California.
    7) Pharmacists
    8) California requires licenses for just about any job, caregiver, manicurist, landscaper, etc.
    9) CPA

    Others?

  • #2
    As a doctor, I do have a state license but my DEA and CDS registrations are national.

    I'd be fine with some things switching to national instead of state. It would be simpler and uniform across the country, but you'll get all the states' rights folks disagreeing with you.

    I'd much rather see voting nationalized.
    Steve

    * Despite the high cost of living, it remains very popular.
    * Why should I pay for my daughter's education when she already knows everything?
    * There are no shortcuts to anywhere worth going.

    Comment


    • #3
      I don't like the idea of the feds doing something just for the sake of more revenue..
      ..Also I like having options and not have everything nationalized ..but if the state would still can have their own layer on top .. it's not such a bad idea.

      Comment


      • #4
        Professional Engineering licenses as well as contractor licenses also are state by state. For the PE license you can generally get a license in another state by reciprocity. That being said, renewal cycles and continuing education requirements vary, which makes it something of a pain in backside to manage. There's some limited rationale for state by state licensing (e.g., California and seismic considerations) but other than that, a national program would make a lot of sense.

        I'm also in favor of abolishing the electoral college and having a national popular vote for the Presidency.
        “Compound interest is the eighth wonder of the world. He who understands it, earns it … he who doesn’t … pays it.”

        Comment


        • #5
          I live, work, and breathe federal bureaucracy.... Trust me, you don't want the feds responsible for issuing your driver's license. When's the last time you got a passport? The federal government constantly sacrifices clerical staffs for the sake of budget cuts & such. All of what you're talking about is dependent on that clerical staff, which tells me that the system would be horrifyingly slow and inefficient.

          Quite simply, our country is too large and too diverse (and too needy) for most bureaucracy to be effectively managed. Most of our states are the size/population of a totally independent country. Sorry, but I totally disagree. There are a limited number of things that I believe rightfully belongs at the federal level. The rest should be administered by the state (or lower).

          BTW, the Bill of Rights agrees -- 10th amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

          Comment


          • #6
            Drivers licenses are issued by the states, but commercial drivers are regulated by the Fed.
            Controlled prescription medications are regulated by the Fed but each state has to run their own registry tracking their usage.

            That's just two examples of places where splitting the duties leads to confusion and inefficiencies.

            As for state by state licenses, as srblanco7 said, one issue there is 50 different sets of rules. I live on the border of NJ and PA. Many doctors here are licensed in both states and practice in both. But they each have different continuing education requirements and schedules which gets confusing. The NJ medical society I belong to has an annual conference and it always includes a few classes that are required for FL because a lot of older docs are snowbirds and have licenses in both FL and NJ. Medicine is pretty much the same everywhere. A national license and national education requirement would make far more sense.
            Steve

            * Despite the high cost of living, it remains very popular.
            * Why should I pay for my daughter's education when she already knows everything?
            * There are no shortcuts to anywhere worth going.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by kork13 View Post
              I live, work, and breathe federal bureaucracy.... Trust me, you don't want the feds responsible for issuing your driver's license. When's the last time you got a passport? The federal government constantly sacrifices clerical staffs for the sake of budget cuts & such. All of what you're talking about is dependent on that clerical staff, which tells me that the system would be horrifyingly slow and inefficient.

              Quite simply, our country is too large and too diverse (and too needy) for most bureaucracy to be effectively managed. Most of our states are the size/population of a totally independent country. Sorry, but I totally disagree. There are a limited number of things that I believe rightfully belongs at the federal level. The rest should be administered by the state (or lower).

              BTW, the Bill of Rights agrees -- 10th amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
              Bingo. Folks tend to forget that the U.S. wasn’t founded as democracy per se, but a representative republic. There’s a big difference. In many ways, each state operates as its own country.

              Comment


              • #8
                Gun licensing IMHO should be a Fed responsibility, and yes guns can be a hot topic to debate. During the height of the pandemic I got my first gun in California. California does a background check but I think it should be a Fed issue. BTW, I'm not in favor of bigger government. Government tentacles are over-reaching as seen in this pandemic but in certain areas I believe big government is appropriate.

                Edit to add: Bureau of Firearms | State of California - Department of Justice - Office of the Attorney General

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by QuarterMillionMan View Post
                  Gun licensing IMHO should be a Fed responsibility, and yes guns can be a hot topic to debate. During the height of the pandemic I got my first gun in California. California does a background check but I think it should be a Fed issue. BTW, I'm not in favor of bigger government. Government tentacles are over-reaching as seen in this pandemic but in certain areas I believe big government is appropriate.

                  Edit to add: Bureau of Firearms | State of California - Department of Justice - Office of the Attorney General
                  @QMM - the language of the second amendment is pretty clear. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

                  An infringement is a restriction - and licensing is, de facto, a restriction.

                  So...why do you favor federal licensing of firearms?
                  james.c.hendrickson@gmail.com
                  202.468.6043

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I'm pretty much opposed to getting the feds involved in anything else.
                    Would rather see a lot more stuff come off their plate and be regulated at more local levels.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by james.hendrickson View Post

                      @QMM - the language of the second amendment is pretty clear. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

                      An infringement is a restriction - and licensing is, de facto, a restriction.

                      So...why do you favor federal licensing of firearms?
                      I'm going to ask that we do not turn this thread into a gun debate. It's really not the topic at hand.

                      Thank you.
                      Steve

                      * Despite the high cost of living, it remains very popular.
                      * Why should I pay for my daughter's education when she already knows everything?
                      * There are no shortcuts to anywhere worth going.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        So getting back to the question, while I do think there are certain things that would make more sense to handle on the national level, I don't think it should be done simply to increase revenue. And if those things did switch to national rather than state, then the state charges should go away which would just leave the states short on funds. I don't think anything should be licensed both ways with two sets of fees to deal with.
                        Steve

                        * Despite the high cost of living, it remains very popular.
                        * Why should I pay for my daughter's education when she already knows everything?
                        * There are no shortcuts to anywhere worth going.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by disneysteve View Post

                          I'm going to ask that we do not turn this thread into a gun debate. It's really not the topic at hand.

                          Thank you.
                          I don’t see that as a gun debate question as much as a second amendment question. Is the second amendment subject to stomping on?

                          As a side note, I don’t think it is any coincidence that we are hearing of mass shootings and gun violence seemingly daily. We’ve had over a year’s worth of fear porn, lockdowns, and other draconian measures to curb normal human behavior. I don’t know why we would then expect all to be well with society at this point. It ain’t.


                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by disneysteve View Post

                            I'm going to ask that we do not turn this thread into a gun debate. It's really not the topic at hand.

                            Thank you.
                            Actually I'm fine with that. I just opened up a coinbase account - wow. The world of crypto has really, really taken off in the last five years. I made a few bucks signing up for these rewards programs on coinbase and got introduced to a couple of neat ideas.

                            james.c.hendrickson@gmail.com
                            202.468.6043

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by james.hendrickson View Post

                              Actually I'm fine with that. I just opened up a coinbase account - wow. The world of crypto has really, really taken off in the last five years. I made a few bucks signing up for these rewards programs on coinbase and got introduced to a couple of neat ideas.
                              Yes, but did you save 15 percent or more by switching to GEICO?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X