It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Want to Shovel Snow For a Few Extra Dollars? Nope...It's Gonna Cost You.

page: 3
16
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 08:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish


Are you saying that these two, voting age teens live in an area that's not allowed to have a representative in their government?

They call it a "permit", i.e., just another tax.
edit on 11-2-2015 by intrptr because: changed




posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 08:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish

Sorry, replying twice…


The colonists had a beef because they were being taxed by the government in England, where they had no representative to express their views.

Oh yah? What "reps" in Washington are those? The endless tenure politicians at the PAC trough representing the corporate state?

Local governments are subsidized to follow suit. As above so below.
edit on 11-2-2015 by intrptr because: spelling



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Maybe their mistake was not offering to do the cop's driveways for free before passing out the flyers. Do the girl scouts need to spend $450 on a permit before selling cookies too?

What if they had just put up a sign for their shoveling services in front of their own houses or at a local street corner, similar to a garage sale sign ... maybe they could get away with that tactic on a temporary basis.
edit on 11-2-2015 by eeyipes because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 08:57 AM
link   
These kids should consider this their first lesson in running your own business. Get used to bending over and taking it from the government. It only gets worse from here.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 08:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: JIMC5499
I'll lay odds that there is some landscaping company that also shovels and plows snow behind this.
When I lived in Florida, I was fined $100 for changing the oil in my car. They had a law that said that you couldn't do vehicle maintenance that was visible from the street. Did a little research and found out that the head of the Town Council owned the Jiffy Lube. I got the fine dropped by threatening to go to the local television station.


A large number of regulations requiring permits, licensing, etc are often pushed by existing businesses to create barriers to entry. There are any number of laws on the books that make no sense, but upon further investigation you see how they protect business from competition.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 09:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Flatfish

Sorry, replying twice…


The colonists had a beef because they were being taxed by the government in England, where they had no representative to express their views.

Oh yah? What "reps" in Washington are those? The endless tenure politicians at the PAC trough representing the corporate state?

Local governments are subsidized to follow suit. As above so below.


While I don't like the fascist state of our current government any more than you do, I am forced to admit that it's only that way because we, (the people) have allowed it to happen.

Until such time as we, (the people) decide to reject corporate control of our elected officials by insisting on strict public campaign finance reform, including the prohibition of all forms of paid lobbying, I'm afraid things will remain the same.

But at least it's our choice. In the colonial days, they didn't have that choice and hence, the revolt.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Life's too comfy for most to revolt. And there's no guarantees that life on the other side of the revolution will be any better than before. Sometimes it just gets worse. Having no guarantees is scary, and "worse" is uncomfortable. Hence, there shall be no revolting any time soon.


edit on 11-2-2015 by eeyipes because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish
I see we agree on that. Except here…


But at least it's our choice.

I disagree. We awake to it one day, we haven't been taught we have certain freedoms, we discover the ones we don't have…

Like them entrepreneurs that saw an opportunity to capitalize on snow… they had no idea until the police showed up they had no 'right' to do that.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Had to step away.

On returning I am so frikkin' happy to see one thing (or rather a lack of) and that is not one person agrees with the Law on this one.

Finally we are getting somewhere.

Today...The snow shoveler.

Tomorrow? The World!


Peace



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 10:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: jude11
Had to step away.

On returning I am so frikkin' happy to see one thing (or rather a lack of) and that is not one person agrees with the Law on this one.

Finally we are getting somewhere.

Today...The snow shoveler.

Tomorrow? The World!


Peace


Most communities have no soliciting laws for a reason as there are a lot of door to door scammers and nuisance salesmen. However, most people with two brain cells can see the difference between some teens asking to shovel snow for some spending change and some washed up salesman peddling steak knives.

Unfortunately, what often happens with bureaucracies is the power to make rational decisions gets removed. The employees don't want to be responsible for a bad decision, so they try to make a one size fits all situation.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 10:07 AM
link   
I was trying to find the story, but, it was taken down. In Feb. 2010 Pittsburgh was hit with what they are calling "Snowmagedon". The street crews were overloaded in trying to clear the streets. A guy who owned a landscaping company had his employees clear several blocks using his equipment. They would have cleared more, but, were threatened with a fine by the Police. The entire issue came down to him costing the City's UNION employees OVERTIME pay by doing their work.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: ArchAngel_X
What would have happened if those kids simply told the cop, "No"? No profanity, no dismissing the cop's intentions, not being rude or combative, just a simple response to his directive.
I would have simply said no, and see what happens from there.


You'd get a "resisting arrest" charge, its the go-to, default, charge when no crime has been committed.


originally posted by: JIMC5499
I'll lay odds that there is some landscaping company that also shovels and plows snow behind this.
When I lived in Florida, I was fined $100 for changing the oil in my car. They had a law that said that you couldn't do vehicle maintenance that was visible from the street. Did a little research and found out that the head of the Town Council owned the Jiffy Lube.


Yes, you are correct.

There are basically "taxes" and "fees" for being homeless too, they just call it a "citation" in most jurisdictions:

Police served homeless people in the city with almost 40,000 citations over a five-year period

They give unjustified tickets for RV drivers as well:

CHP Giving Tickets To RV Drivers

challenges faced by code enforcement to catch folks sleeping in recreational vehicles, campers, and tiny houses

and when a "preferred" private sector business owners break the law, the police and the DA will ignore your claims of abuse:

Mans House Trashed Mafia Style By Thugs Hired By Mortgage Company (Cop Will Do Nothing)

Hasn't Obamacare taught any of us anything about how these "counter responses" to un-preferred consumer choices will play out?

What do I mean exactly?

Many forget that we now live in what "could" be considered a fascist country, with oligopolies running it behind the scenes. What usually results in this kind of situation is, the "owners of capital" will "legislate" mandatory purchases in the future, if revenue does not match their expectations or projections (for the good of the nation of course, i.e., Too-Big-to-Fail).

So for example, if someone chooses not to buy unneeded goods or services, they will simply pay a "penalty" at tax time. When the "owners of capital" run out of consumer goods that they can "strongly coerce" people to buy in order to go to work, such as, gasoline, internet connection, car insurance, bus/subway fare, cell phones, suits/uniforms, soap, deodorant, razors, etc, they will simply make it law that you have to buy them, in certain quantities before tax season (the current Healthcare dependent Flexible Spending Account, FSA, is just the pilot program, one day we will have an FSA for ALL goods and services, use-it or lose-it).

You will not be allowed to be frugal in the future because the "owners of capital" will take close to the same amount back, when a person tries to save money by reducing purchases, in the form of "tax penalties". In the future when someone chooses "not to buy" and then doesn't have the proper "proof of purchase" coupon to prove they bought these items, in the required quantities, when tax fillings come due, the IRS will have some way to calculate the amount "you should have purchased" (sounds a little like a college FASFA in reverse).

Look at solar roof panels, many local governments are taxing people for installing them because they reduce dependence on local utilities, which in turn drive down privatized revenue being collected by the contract companies hired running the utilities. So, when the local utility loses too much revenue after your neighbors install them also, the government finds a way to "tax" you for the lost revenue they were previously collecting, before you installed the solar panels.

the worldwide battle between utilities and solar

We should ALL be trying to de-fund police departments, instead of trying to prosecute their employees or change laws. Such typical measures have proven, overwhelming, to be ineffective. De-funding police departments is perfectly legal and solves the bad apple problem MUCH faster, than constitutional challenges in the court system.

Activists should be finding ways to, legally, cut the budget for NYPD and all the other PD's acting illegally. By forming their own opposing PAC's (Political Action Committee) focused on chipping away at this single Budget reduction issue, little by little, across the country. Cutting off the money supply will stop them dead, cold, in their tracks.

Defunding government is a sensible voter solution to reining in local government By Dave Duffy

This is the simplest answer that nearly everyone continues to ignore.

LEOs are in place to do the following and NOTHING MORE:

1. Protect themselves.
2. Maximize their total compensation.
3. Act as a source of revenue generation for the department currently employing them, the union they belong to and the local governments authorizing their activities.
4. Protecting the commercial interests of national corporations (with PAC's lobbying on the behalf of these big corps)
5. Protecting the private property of large, influential, land owners, residing within their jurisdiction, that are also contributing to and participate in local politics.
6. Controlling dissenting narratives that would interfere with 1-5.

They’ve been totally co-opted, insulated from consequences and the citizens are picking up the tab. Its that simple, but no one understands this, nor are many willing to accept these facts. Also most importantly, that’s how Fascism works and in turn uses domestic police forces.
edit on 11-2-2015 by boohoo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 10:36 AM
link   
I think perhaps it was the door to door thing that even brought this to the cops attention, maybe some nasty neighbor or a competing entity that notified them. What a shame and what a terrible thing to damper our youths entrepreneurial spirit. I hope this kid and his parents don't accept this as defeat, but rather find out the laws and any "LOOPHOLES" that will allow him to follow through with his snow shoveling venture.

Just as others have suggested that these kids are learning early the bureaucracy their going to have to negotiate through in their lives, they also need to understand that blindly following unjust laws doesn't have to be their generations fate. Maybe this kid has the ability to amend this law through public support, at the very least shine the light on this stupidity.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
this is America damnit they need to pay their taxes!



Yup cause the whole country was founded on people wanting to pay there tax


O the irony.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 10:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
They should be praising these yoing chaps for being good to the community and showing initiative.


Remember initiative is only for the privately educated ruling overclass.

initiative and ambition need to be put down in the servile underclass.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 10:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: ArchAngel_X
What would have happened if those kids simply told the cop, "No"? No profanity, no dismissing the cop's intentions, not being rude or combative, just a simple response to his directive. Now I'm not presenting this as though the cop would have shrugged and walked away, but it flabbergasts me that not only it seems the population is placated into following orders without question, but that they also aren't willing to take a chance to see what will happen either.

I would have simply said no, and see what happens from there.


The cops likely would have put them in a choke hold and straggled them to death.

Not worth the risk.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
The cops likely would have put them in a choke hold and straggled them to death.

Not worth the risk.


Also don't forget, Police Chief Michael Jannone said, "We don't make the laws but we have to uphold them"



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 11:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: boohoo

originally posted by: crazyewok
The cops likely would have put them in a choke hold and straggled them to death.

Not worth the risk.


Also don't forget, Police Chief Michael Jannone said, "We don't make the laws but we have to uphold them"

"We don't make or obey the laws but we have to uphold them"

Fixed for accuracy



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 11:10 AM
link   
The permit requirements are getting out of hand.
When I was a kid, I used to pull weeds along the front side of my neighbor's house between her flowering bushes, and edge her sidewalk & driveway. Every week, at best if it was needed that often. She'd give me a $10 every week for it, for something that amounted to roughly 30 minutes' worth of time.
I didn't start out doing it with making money in mind, I did it because she & her hubby worked long hours & I overheard her explaining to my mom one evening, quite upset, that she didn't have the time to garden anymore & she envied my mom's yard. She was very shocked & elated to come home to see all of it done & manicured for her one day, & I simply kept up on it for the happy smiles. The $10 was real nice to have, but I'd have done it even if she never gave me a cent anyway. It made me happy to see her happy.
From what people I still know in that town have told me, you need a permit to do that now whether or not you charge for it, because "it's a service". Oh bleep off, a helping hand is not a service, it's just the right thing to do. Government gougers have no sense of community



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: jude11

No. Here in Rhode Island the towns are placing a $100 fine on home owners for not shoveling out the side walk. The home owner by law does not own the side walk or the first five feet of their yard beyond the sidewalk. Even if the side walk has been shoveled and the plow trucks pile it back up the home owner must go out and clear it again.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join