Christmas tree tax? Really?

Redbaron007 · Nov 10, 2011

It's not the .15 cents.....it's the fact a federal bureaucrat can just impose a tax on the American public whenever it wants. We have all kinds of internal taxes, created by a department and implemented on the American public at will. This is the problem! With this administration, or any other one for that matter, the voters should question it/demand retraction until approved by them.

If you don't fight the battles, chances are you will loose the war.

beebobby · Nov 10, 2011

The Christmas tree industry has been working since 2008 — before President Obama was elected — to partner with the Department of Agriculture and establish a marketing campaign funded by tree growers in order to promote the sale of fresh Christmas trees.Far from a tax initiated by the Obama administration, the proposal to create an assessment on tree growers to fund a research and promotion program through the USDA was begun by the industry during the Bush administration.

MAC702 · Nov 10, 2011

Venator said:
...Around 27,000,000 trees sold last year, so the tax would be around $4,000,000 dollars for the agency....

And what will it cost to fund the establishment, administration, and enforcement?

MAC702 · Nov 10, 2011

beebobby said:
The Christmas tree industry has been working since 2008 — before President Obama was elected — to partner with the Department of Agriculture and establish a marketing campaign funded by tree growers in order to promote the sale of fresh Christmas trees.Far from a tax initiated by the Obama administration, the proposal to create an assessment on tree growers to fund a research and promotion program through the USDA was begun by the industry during the Bush administration.

Am I missing the obvious? If the industry wants to market itself, what prevents it from raising its own wholesale prices enough to fund its own marketing drive? Why does the government need to be involved at any level?

09jisaac · Nov 10, 2011

MAC702 said:
Am I missing the obvious? If the industry wants to market itself, what prevents it from raising its own wholesale prices enough to fund its own marketing drive? Why does the government need to be involved at any level?

Thats what I was thinking. The government needs to stay out of things, it has no right to get into a lot of the things it is in.

It would not bother me one bit if the CT industry adds $.50 to every christmas tree and passes that on to the consumer. But when the government does it, that bothers me.

Grapeshot · Nov 10, 2011

MAC702 said:
Am I missing the obvious? If the industry wants to market itself, what prevents it from raising its own wholesale prices enough to fund its own marketing drive? Why does the government need to be involved at any level?

It has been cancelled.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57321664-503544/christmas-tree-tax-sidelined-after-uproar/

beebobby · Nov 10, 2011

It was an effort by the growers to raise funds for an advertising campaign along the lines of "Got Milk?" and "Pork, the other white meat" in an effort to offset the increase market share of the christmas tree industry taken over by cheap imitation trees from, you guessed it... China. So all the knee jerk anti-Obamabots have effectively killed the funding for that ad campaign, all for 15 cents per tree, paid by the growers. The lobbyists for the Chinese companies thank you for your support.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/christmastree.asp

MAC702 · Nov 10, 2011

beebobby said:
It was an effort by the growers to raise funds for an advertising campaign along the lines of "Got Milk?" and "Pork, the other white meat" in an effort to offset the increase market share of the christmas tree industry taken over by cheap imitation trees from, you guessed it... China. So all the knee jerk anti-Obamabots have effectively killed the funding for that ad campaign, all for 15 cents per tree, paid by the growers. The lobbyists for the Chinese companies thank you for your support.

This has nothing to do with Obama, as has been noted. One doesn't have to be anti-Obama to be anti-government-intrusion-into-none-of-its-damn-business.

If the domestic market is viable, it will sustain itself. If it is not, they should learn to grow something else. But it's more American to cry about it and demand government protection than it is to give the people what they want to buy.

As argued, 15 cents per tree was not the issue, so why not raise the wholesale price outside of government requirements? Fund your own damn marketing about how great your product is. Hire the marketing firm used by Taurus. Those guys are geniuses that can sell anything.

The lobbyists for the tree growers thank you for your support. But then, I've never bought a Christmas Tree, foreign or domestic. How unpatriotic is THAT?!

Seigi · Nov 10, 2011

beebobby, if private industry wants to pool funds for advertising then they can do so without government coercion. Your post gives a rationalization, not a reason.

Furthermore, imposing a tax on a seller typically causes the price to rise, thereby transferring some of the tax to the buyer. This results in buyers paying for ads for the sellers. It adds a government aspect to the free market. Would we allow growers to collude to raise prices and put the money into advertising? No, I think that would be price fixing, and the contract unenforceable as contrary to public policy. But do it through the government and suddenly everything is peachy.

MAC702 · Nov 10, 2011

Seigi said:
Would we allow growers to collude to raise prices and put the money into advertising? ...

Collude, no, but they should form an association with the goal of promoting the industry. The association fees are naturally passed through to the wholesale and retail prices. The benefits of the association and its promotions must outweigh the raised prices to consumers. No government involvement necessary, nor should it be desired.

09jisaac · Nov 10, 2011

I wouldn't have a problem with a bunch of tree growers coming together and saying "Hey, lets add $1.00 ($10,$100, $1000) to the price so we can fund advertising."

That, in my opinion, is their right to do. That is not price fixing, that is just smart. Its like the beef industry coming together to promote beef.

But that is not the right of the government..... I don't like this picking a choosing ****, if they want to add a $.15 fee to anything it needs to be to EVERYTHING.

MilProGuy · Nov 10, 2011

Redbaron007 said:
It's not the .15 cents.....it's the fact a federal bureaucrat can just impose a tax on the American public whenever it wants. We have all kinds of internal taxes, created by a department and implemented on the American public at will. This is the problem! With this administration, or any other one for that matter, the voters should question it/demand retraction until approved by them.

If you don't fight the battles, chances are you will loose the war.

Very well-stated.

Thank you.

Seigi · Nov 10, 2011

MAC702, that's what I was getting at in the first paragraph of my post. There's nothing wrong with pooling funds for advertising, and by doing it privately you can get better responsiveness than from the government in terms of how best to do it.

What I mean by collusion, price fixing, and "contract unenforceable" is that if a bunch of growers got together and signed a mandatory agreement to raise prices (regardless of purpose of the funding), that that would be price fixing and that if one of them broke ranks the others would be unable to get a court to enforce the contract and force the price cutting grower to raise their prices. When the government does it via tax, however, there is no escape within the industry and growers have to increase their price or take the hit to their own pockets. What would otherwise have required ongoing consent now does not. The free market induced instability to a price fixing scheme is gone.

sudden valley gunner · Nov 11, 2011

Literally nickel and diming us.....

MAC702 · Nov 11, 2011

Seigi: I understand now why the government was involved. Knowing that up front would have made this thread a lot shorter or even unnecessary. Some bad reporting was done from the very beginning.

beebobby · Nov 11, 2011

The industry is starting their own fund for research and marketing. The only role the government has is one of oversight. The fifteen cent fee goes to the private sector, not the government. Uncle Sam doesn’t see a dime. By smearing this fee, the right is attacking one of the traditional symbols of the holiday that they claim the left is out to destroy. Right wing media is willing to hurt one of their beloved private sector (holiday) job creators in order to attack Obama.

Grapeshot · Nov 11, 2011

Grapeshot said:
It has been cancelled.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57321664-503544/christmas-tree-tax-sidelined-after-uproar/

beebobby said:
The industry is starting their own fund for research and marketing. The only role the government has is one of oversight. The fifteen cent fee goes to the private sector, not the government. Uncle Sam doesn’t see a dime. By smearing this fee, the right is attacking one of the traditional symbols of the holiday that they claim the left is out to destroy. Right wing media is willing to hurt one of their beloved private sector (holiday) job creators in order to attack Obama.

See above - previously noted on this thread.

Further, the fee/tax was proposed, initiated and was to be administrated by the government. Who do you suppose was going to pay for that? Your spinning of the details is obvious.

beebobby · Nov 11, 2011

The fee was proposed by the industry, not the govt.

MAC702 · Nov 11, 2011

beebobby said:
The industry is starting their own fund for research and marketing. The only role the government has is one of oversight. The fifteen cent fee goes to the private sector, not the government. Uncle Sam doesn’t see a dime. By smearing this fee, the right is attacking one of the traditional symbols of the holiday that they claim the left is out to destroy. Right wing media is willing to hurt one of their beloved private sector (holiday) job creators in order to attack Obama.

We conceded very early on that this had nothing to do with Obama. But if Uncle Sam isn't seeing a dime, how would they be making sure this program is administered and enforced?

Government oversight appears to be legally required for this issue because of other intrusive Government regulations. Okay. Done. Settled. Move on.

We didn't smear the fee. We smeared its creation process. There is a big difference.

Grapeshot · Nov 11, 2011

beebobby said:
The fee was proposed by the industry, not the govt.

The industry supported and possibly suggested the fee/tax. The idea was formalized by the federal government, absolutely without question.

The White House has decided to sideline a proposed fee on Christmas trees, after the fee was ridiculed by critics as a tax on Christmas.

The 15-cent tax on Christmas trees was announced Tuesday in the Federal Register and was meant to pay for a new board tasked with promoting the Christmas tree industry.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ent-imposes-christmas-tree-tax/#ixzz1dQaHMneT

The above is not an industry generated cost of doing business (which that can still do) - it is your tax dollars at work. Make no mistake about that.

Christmas tree tax? Really?

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Legendary Warrior