Pennsylvania Takes On Crack Dealing To Elementary Schoolers
Oops, sorry...it seems they're too busy going after a stay-at-home mom who opened an eBay business in 2004 so she could help pay the bills while caring for her cancer-stricken 6-month-old daughter. Bob Fernandez writes in the Inquirer:
Mary Jo Pletz was really, really good at eBay. But now the former stay-at-home mother and gonzo Internet retailer fears a maximum $10 million fine for selling 10,000 toys, antiques, videos, sports memorabilia, books, tools and infant clothes on eBay without an auctioneer's license.An official from the Department of State knocked on Pletz's white-brick ranch here north of Allentown in late December 2006 and said her Internet business, D&J Virtual Consignment, was being investigated for violating state laws.
"I was dumbfounded," said Pletz, who led the dark-suited investigator to a side patio area, where he grilled her. "I told him I would just shut down," she said.
The Pletz case has unleashed a political storm in Harrisburg over what - if anything - should be done about regulating Internet auctions in Pennsylvania.
Two bills have been introduced. One would require Internet sellers who run a business to get an electronic auctioneer's license that would cost about $100 a year. The other would leave Internet auctions as the Wild West of retail.
Thousands of jobs and the fate of a new-economy industry in Pennsylvania could be at stake. There are 400 so-called Internet retail drop-off stores in Pennsylvania, according to state officials, and 14,000 state residents who earn most of their annual income selling on Internet auctions.
EBay opposes state regulatory action on Internet auctions around the nation and warns that it could threaten the livelihood of an estimated 430,000 people who "earn a substantial portion or all of their incomes selling on eBay."
An "electronic auctioneer's license"?
State Rat-resentative Michael Sturla, writes Fernandez, "has proposed the bill to create the electronic auctioneer's license. The license would require the Internet seller to buy a $5,000 bond for about $40 a year. This would protect consumers, he said."
Oh, please. I shop on eBay for much of the stuff I buy, and I protect myself just fine by reading people's reviews and by understanding that you probably can't get something for nothing.
What, I'm going to sue Pennsylvania for $20 if somebody fails to send me the paint-by-number I bought?
via ifeminists
I am not a big fan of Ebay, I call it "Americas Fence" It has been determined that 40% of the transactions on Ebay involve some sort of fraud or stolen property.
That having been said, I saw this womens story on the news and she looks like one of those people who just buys things and tries to turn around and sell them to someone else for a few dollars more. Personally, I think this is a real dumb way to make a living, but people are doing it. As long as they are not selling stolen goods or defrauding anyone, they should be left the hell alone. I think this is the state with dollar signs in it's eye's trying to look for another source of revenue, that they can give to someone sitting on their ass.
Bikerken at February 5, 2008 12:08 AM
The Wild West sounds a lot more attractive than living in Pennsylvania right now.
Shawn at February 5, 2008 12:19 AM
40%? Really? Do you have a source?
More like "It has been determined that 98% of all statistics quoted in blog comments are completely made up."
And you do realize that everything you own was bought from someone who "buys things and tries to turn around and sell them to someone else for a few dollars more."
Unless, I guess, you bought it on eBay, in which case there's a 40% chance it's stolen property.
Clinky at February 5, 2008 12:25 AM
This is move to pay a fee is not to protect the consumer. It is to another name for TAX. The government want to get a bit more money so they now can tax/fee all those people who do a little INET auctioning on the side. Some gov-man saw a way to add some bucks to the coffers. Next way is amateur porn web stars will need a $500 dollars "web entertainer license" to protect the children and poor grasping basement dwellers from being cheated.
Once again the government says we are screwing you to protect you. Do you really believe that if someone gets cheated that this bill will have protected them. Hell cheaters will pay the fee because it will allow them to use "Goverment Certified" to swallow in a few more customers.
John Paulson at February 5, 2008 3:46 AM
The government should not be trying to protect people from themselves - if I want to assume the risk of buying something from a stranger and get screwed I will give them a negative...I've never had to give a negative!
I'm with John P. Caveat emptor. And leave me the fuck alone.
Mr. Government is trying to be the good guy who saves the day but in reality it's another way to put some extra bucks in their wallets. I'm sure this woman is paying income tax and probably self employment tax (FICA)?
Bikerken, it might be a poor way in some peoples' opinion but she wouldn't be doing it if it wasn't profitable. At least not if she's rational.
Gretchen at February 5, 2008 5:17 AM
The defrauders on eBay aren't the American "power sellers," but the Romanians:
http://www.contractoruk.com/news/003644.html
Not surprisingly, they got to the level of fraud they're at thanks to EU welfare.
Amy Alkon at February 5, 2008 5:22 AM
I don't know. Everyone holds the internet out as a free-for-all zone where no rules apply but I think sooner or later, they will have to to some extent anyway.
I go two ways about this. I don't think it'd be right to make anyone selling something on e-Bay pay these fees.
On the other hand, when you've got to the point this lady has, I can see it. It's a business and, at the volume she's doing business (from Pennsylvania wherever her customers may be), perhaps the usual state regs of the state she's doing business from should apply.
Think of it this way:
Joe Blow selling a couple of used items on e-Bay compares really to someone holding a garage sale.
Someone selling 10,000 items pretty much compares more accurately to a mail order catalog business. Perhaps whatever laws apply to operating a mail order business should apply to them. What difference does it make whether you snail mail catalogs (most also have web sites too now) or advertise on line?
If you think about it, she's a business woman and any rules that apply to other businesses should also apply to her. I think maybe a law that says you need it to sell over a certain quantity is absolutely fair. It's not fair to other businesses that have to pay their fees/taxes to let one operate without paying theirs. Do you really think you could get away with selling 10,000 items in a short period of time out of your garage without calling yourself a business.
And, please, with the bleeding heart crap. Being a single mom with a sick child has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Donna at February 5, 2008 6:00 AM
Of course, the obvious solution is to abolish those fees/taxes too. Another case of the government needing to fuck off.
Jordan at February 5, 2008 7:07 AM
If she's paying her state and Federal taxes, she's already paying "fees" for doing business.
Amy Alkon at February 5, 2008 7:09 AM
"And you do realize that everything you own was bought from someone who "buys things and tries to turn around and sell them to someone else for a few dollars more.""
Yay Clinky!
I used to be Ebay's biggest fan. I could find obscure items at reasonable to remarkable prices, I could make a few bucks while getting rid of clutter and it was fun. I still get a pathetic little ego boost reading back over my transaction ratings (still at 100%, thppp!)
But at some point I noticed sellers would not post feedback until after I had posted theirs. (Sellers used to be expected to post feedback once they had been paid, giving the buyer an incentive to pay up quickly.) I questioned a seller about this and she huffed back that she was tired of having her reputation dragged through the mud over nothing more than buyer's remorse. I read back over her reviews and found plenty where the narrative of the review told a different story than the "positive" box that was checked. Some of these sellers are swindlers, thugs and crooks, just like they guys who sell stereos and T.V.'s out of vans downtown (ahem, not that I'd know.)
And I've found that they have soured the experience of Ebay selling just as much as buying. Any transaction can hit a snag. It used to be that two reasonable people could work out something in a friendly way. Now, at the first sign of misunderstanding, both parties go into combat mode with the formal complaints flying, oy.
The golden age of Ebay is over. But anyone who thinks licensure will do anything but add cost is suffering a recto-cranial inversion. Ebay is still an almost perfect marketplace and government should butt the hell out.
martin at February 5, 2008 7:15 AM
I understand Donna's point that businesses that do the same thing, using different modes, should be taxed/treated the same. However, there is a difference between Ms. Pletz's operation and a mail-order catalog business located in Pennsylvania -- that being the fact that the catalog business has bricks & mortar, and employees who use municipal infrastructure in getting to and from work. *Maybe* that *might* be a reason for taxing them differently.
All that said, the internet in general is the last bastion of true freedom -- commercial, political, and otherwise, as well as the only institution in America (other than religion) pretty well unburdened by government intrusion. This nickel and dime licensing scheme is just another incremental tactic to allow govco to get its grubby hands on something that is run by real people. It just chafes politicians' butts that there is something out there in the economy that is operating out of their control. They simply won't have that.
cpabroker at February 5, 2008 7:34 AM
Clinky, you want to dispute 40% fine, go ahead, YMMV but that's the number that they came up in the news when they did the investigation for the Tiffany lawsuit against Ebay. That same figure came up when they were doing news stories about six months ago about people wholesale stealing from bulk stores like Walmat and Target and selling boxes of stuff on ebay. I've seen stories where police and theft victims are looking on ebay first to find stolen goods, and that tactic is recovering a lot of stolen goods. I already have a BS and don't do homework for argumentative bloggers. If you want to dispute that figure, go ahead. What % do you think it is, where is your homework?
I am positive that most of the trading that goes on there is perfectly legit, but I would also say that if you don't think that there is a one hell of a lot of fraud and deceit on ebay, I have some land in florida you can bid on.
Bikerken at February 5, 2008 8:22 AM
Gretchen, you're right, if shes making money, more power to her. But as a job, it's based on the 'bigger fool' theory. (The idea that you can always find somone to pay more for something than you did.) This is like gambling, it doesn't work all of the time. The funny thing is that ebay is getting saturated with people who are doing this to each other. It's laughable. My friend Pennie at work uses it a lot, she bought a hard to find size bathing suit she really wanted and it worked out well for her. She just couldn't find one in a store in town. But she's been burnt a few times. I also have a friend who does this same thing at home, buying and re-selling on ebay. I don't think she's doing too good. But again, if she's making legal money, let her be. The thing is, being a single person sitting at a computer, Even if you worked all day long, how much volume could you possibly do? This woman was supposedly running a consignment business. If you are going to sell items in bulk at auction and claim a business tax status, then I don't think forty bucks a year is a lot of money to pay for a license, but I have a feeling the government intervention won't stop there.
Bikerken at February 5, 2008 8:36 AM
>>> And you do realize that everything you own was bought from someone who "buys things and tries to turn around and sell them to someone else for a few dollars more."
This is not an accurate statement Colonel Clink. There is a big difference between retailing and auctioning.
Bikerken at February 5, 2008 8:41 AM
Bikerken, can you provide a link to an article with the 40% figure? Because I've been Googling a bit to look for that and I can't find an article that claims that 40% of all of the products on eBay are fradulent. I found a few mentioning that 40% of eBay's auctions are now fixed-price, and one mentioning a claim by Adidas that 40% of its brand-name items that it monitored on eBay sales were fradulent, but that's it. I'd like to see more about how the 40% number was calculated.
On the other hand, when you've got to the point this lady has, I can see it. It's a business and, at the volume she's doing business (from Pennsylvania wherever her customers may be), perhaps the usual state regs of the state she's doing business from should apply.
Perhaps. In which case the authorities could have contacted her and said, "Did you know that what you're doing essentially qualifies you as an auctioneer? If you don't want to be fined heavily for auctioneering without a license, you need to buy this $40/year permit that will allow you to go on operating." Then allow her to put "Bonded by the State of Pennsylvania" on her auctions. But the approach taken - treating her as a guilty criminal and threatening huge amounts of fines - was beyond absurd.
This is not an accurate statement Colonel Clink. There is a big difference between retailing and auctioning.
Yes - in auctioning you get closer to the true market price of the object since a price isn't set in advance. But the larger point remains that pretty much *everything* you buy has gone through a few middlemen, all of whom have made a profit, or they wouldn't still be in business. I see no reason why the honest auctioneers on eBay should be criticized for their actions while the middlemen in regular retail are not.
marion at February 5, 2008 9:01 AM
No Marion, I can't provide you with a source on that, It's a figure I have heard repeatedly in news numerous news stories regarding ebay. By the way, they way it was phrased was, 40% of the transactions on ebay involve some form of fraud, deciet or theft. That encompasses a lot. They also qualify that with, much of it goes unreported because people feel foolish and embarrassed. I don't know if it's true, but it sure wouldn't surprise me. You don't get very good results googling it because, well, who owns ebay? I have heard some great stories from friends like my buddy who bought these highway road emergency kits for christmas presents, when he got them, they were about four inchs long. They were toys. But they matched the picture. When he brought them into the office, I thought I die laughing.
I'm not sure why anyone would find that 40 percent figure hard to believe. Ebay is the perfect platform for any con man or thief getting rid of stolen goods. You could write volumns of encylopedias about fraud on ebay. It is the venue for buying things sight unseen where you have to put a lot of trust in the other party. It seems some are sensitive about ebay. I have used it to find vintage motorcycle parts. But I'm pretty wary about the way I buy things. I'm not knocking it altogether, but buyer beware.
Bikerken at February 5, 2008 10:09 AM
Next they will require a permit to join an online dating service or to get an internet connection.
Morons.
austin at February 5, 2008 10:31 AM
austin: That's already happened, sort of. There's a federal law that requires men who want to join international dating services to register with the feds and give them all sorts of personal information. Here's a link to a Wendy McElroy article about it:
http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2006/0111.html
Cousin Dave at February 5, 2008 10:51 AM
The ironic thing about all this is that if the state had handled things differently, it could have been a win-win situation. Imagine if the Pennsylvania authorities had held a press conference and said, "We are concerned about the levels of fraud on eBay originating from sellers in Pennsylvania. As a result, we are now requiring people who accumulate more than $4500 in sales on eBay to purchase a $5000 bond for $40 per year. In return, these people will be able to put 'Bonded by the State of Pennsylvania' on their auctions." Don't know about you, but I'd be MORE likely to buy from such people, and I bet at least some other buyers would too. States could ask eBay for a transaction history for anyone applying for a bond - sellers with a high number of fraud complaints could be investigated further.
I don't think that creative approaches to raising money by the state are always bad. As an occasional eBay user, I'd love to have the option of using a bonded seller, and would probably be willing to pay an extra dollar or two. (There's always Craigslist if you want a really free selling environment.) My issue comes when the state comes down like an 800-pound gorilla on people who were doing nothing wrong. Among other things, coming down like an 800-pound gorilla involves time, money and energy on the part of law enforcement that could otherwise be used to, say, investigate identity theft, murders, etc. Oftentimes, the approach of governments to "crime" remind me of the guy who lost his keys and looked for them three blocks away because the light was better there. Pennsylvania went after this woman because she was an easy target - easier than, say, gang members and identity thieves.
marion at February 5, 2008 12:30 PM
It is very difficult for the State to consistently exercise reason and discretion. This is why it is necessary to very carefully weigh statist solutions to problems before resorting to them - one reason I cringe at Obama, Clinton, or McCain as President. State intervention should be the last resort only when the efforts of civil society or the market clearly cannot work to solve a serious, PUBLIC problem - say, catching murderers, controlling immigration, national defense, etc.
This sort of thing is also why I came out so strongly against the anti-spanking law that one Massachussets law maker proposed (probably as a meaningless sop to some constituent). A government that can torment some poor women for selling junk on eBay can just as easily torment some decent parent trying to raise his or her kids as best as he or she can, but in a way that some state functionary doesn't like.
On the spanking debate I said that the State already has the laws and resources to protect children from REAL abuse. A ban on spanking is not needed, would in fact only divert resources needed to protect truly endangered children, and would probably cause more harm to children than the banned act of spanking. Same for this silly proposal to create an electronic auctioneer license. There are already laws and mechanisms on the books to deal with serious fraud. They are just as applicable to eBay transactions as anything else. Bugging struggling moms running eBay businesses is nothing but a distraction from dealing with REAL online threats, like identity theft.
A few laws, vigorously enforced, with the widest possible sphere of unencumbered private action. That's what I say.
Finally, I'm with Amy. I buy lots of stuff on eBay. If I get burned, it's on me. If it is a lot of money I might sue, but for the small transactions I do I'll probably just eat it. That is a LOT less painful than the burdens that will come along with any "protection" that the state might give me.
Dennis at February 5, 2008 8:28 PM
>>>Finally, I'm with Amy. I buy lots of stuff on eBay. If I get burned, it's on me. If it is a lot of money I might sue, but for the small transactions I do I'll probably just eat it. That is a LOT less painful than the burdens that will come along with any "protection" that the state might give me.
You know Dennis, I think that as long as you are aware of the hazards and are willing to take a chance, go for it. Personally, if I was going to buy a new rolex, I would go to a reputable jeweler and proabably pay 500 bucks more rather than go to ebay and take a chance. But if I was buying something under fifty bucks, I wouldn't care that much about risking that much money.
I am a capitalist after all.
Bikerken at February 5, 2008 10:44 PM
In all the years, and with all the stuff I've been buying on eBay, I once got rooked out of $19 for a paint-by-number. And a jerkoff lady in Texas sent me a jacket that smelled like mothballs. But I have never spent more than $100 on any item on eBay. I typically spend about $10, maybe $20. And I get some amazing stuff that's worth sometimes 20 times what I paid.
Amy Alkon at February 5, 2008 11:17 PM
C'mon. I still hold that this woman was running a business. Her home office is the damned brick and mortar and it happens to be in PA. More power to her for finding a way to work at home but to not consider that kind of a volume a business is ridiculous. She had the savvy to get this up and running that profitably and she didn't have the savvy to say gee, I better see if my state has any laws about selling this amount of stuff? Gimme a break. I wouldn't, frankly, be surprised if she was dealing in stolen goods but I'll give her the benefit of the doubt on that. I'm glad PA is doing this.
And would you all feel it was okay if instead of a Mom with a sick child this was the mom in the family of six who didn't want to work at Starbucks to provide health insurance for her home-schooled kids? Would you really be surprised if she's not reporting this as income and applying for Medicaid for this sick child? Do we know if she is? Or food stamps? Or heating assistance? Etc.? So she's paying her income taxes? So is the owner of that mom and pop restaurant downtown? They still have to pay to have a business license? Gimme a break with this. Take out the single mom/sick child card and you all have got nothing. Are you the same bunch that doesn't think moms should automatically be granted welfare so they can stay home with their kiddies? Why is this one being given special treatment?
Donna at February 6, 2008 11:24 AM
Ahem. There is precedent for requiring a license based on volume. Federal law states that you may sell your guns, regardless of the amount of money involved, without a license if you are not "in the business" of selling guns. You may search the Treasury Web site for details.
Then, nobody should be surprised at the appearance of governmental controls. But I bet you will be surprised by this: you cannot conduct business with bills larger than $100, because the Fed will take them from you when they reach a bank. Part of the concern is that counterfeiting becomes more profitable when larger denominations are involved, but a real factor is that large cash transactions would be easier, with no records from which to demand taxes.
Radwaste at February 8, 2008 7:10 AM
More taxes means more freedom.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at February 9, 2008 10:48 AM
Leave a comment