Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index

Creating Jobs with New Taxes--on Christmas Trees!

  • Posted on
  • by Doctor Fate
User avatar
Doctor Fate
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 09 Nov 2011, 8:46 am

President Obama is once again bypassing Congress. Good for him! Someone has to do something to create jobs, right? He has a perfectly good plan:

President Obama’s Agriculture Department today announced that it will impose a new 15-cent charge on all fresh Christmas trees—the Christmas Tree Tax—to support a new Federal program to improve the image and marketing of Christmas trees.

In the Federal Register of November 8, 2011, Acting Administrator of Agricultural Marketing David R. Shipman announced that the Secretary of Agriculture will appoint a Christmas Tree Promotion Board. The purpose of the Board is to run a “program of promotion, research, evaluation, and information designed to strengthen the Christmas tree industry’s position in the marketplace; maintain and expend existing markets for Christmas trees; and to carry out programs, plans, and projects designed to provide maximum benefits to the Christmas tree industry” (7 CFR 1214.46(n)). And the program of “information” is to include efforts to “enhance the image of Christmas trees and the Christmas tree industry in the United States” (7 CFR 1214.10).

To pay for the new Federal Christmas tree image improvement and marketing program, the Department of Agriculture imposed a 15-cent fee on all sales of fresh Christmas trees by sellers of more than 500 trees per year (7 CFR 1214.52). And, of course, the Christmas tree sellers are free to pass along the 15-cent Federal fee to consumers who buy their Christmas trees.

Acting Administrator Shipman had the temerity to say the 15-cent mandatory Christmas tree fee “is not a tax nor does it yield revenue for the Federal government” (76 CFR 69102). The Federal government mandates that the Christmas tree sellers pay the 15-cents per tree, whether they want to or not. The Federal government directs that the revenue generated by the 15-cent fee goes to the Board appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out the Christmas tree program established by the Secretary of Agriculture. Mr. President, that’s a new 15-cent tax to pay for a Federal program to improve the image and marketing of Christmas trees.


Right on! Christmas trees have had a bad image--look at the uproar when the Wisconsin governor changed the 'holiday tree" to a "Christmas tree!" We need a bureaucracy to end the long national nightmare of a war on Christmas trees!

Good job Mr. Obama!

I think this marks the beginning of the economic turnaround. Now, just a few more well-placed taxes to create more government jobs and we'll be rolling in clover!
User avatar
rickyp
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 09 Nov 2011, 9:28 am

What have you got against the promotion of Christmas Steve?
Careful, OReilly will seek you out as a proponent of the War on Christmas...
User avatar
Doctor Fate
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 09 Nov 2011, 9:32 am

rickyp wrote:What have you got against the promotion of Christmas Steve?
Careful, OReilly will seek you out as a proponent of the War on Christmas...


I wasn't aware that promoting Christmas was constitutional--in a liberal worldview. What about the "wall" between Church and State?

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

Anyway, I'm just proud that the President is taxing the poor to employ bureaucrats!

Maybe he could put that on a bumper sticker? You know: "I raised the cost of Christmas so that someone you don't know could get a useless Federal job. Re-elect Obama-Biden 2012"

Just a suggestion.
User avatar
danivon
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 09 Nov 2011, 10:26 am

15 cents per tree. What's that as a percentage of the normal retail price? Less than a single point, I'd imagine.
User avatar
geojanes
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3490
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 09 Nov 2011, 10:32 am

Clearly a silly thing, and I'm guessing Mr. Obama didn't know anything about it.

But this is the kind of stuff that drives people crazy. Yes, it's well under 1% but if the tree people wanted an industry group, why didn't they start one? Why does the ag department have to do it for them? Someone, somewhere came up with this idea and made it law. I'd really like to know the backstory.
User avatar
SLOTerp
NASCAR Driver (Pro V)
 
Posts: 7838
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 09 Nov 2011, 11:36 am

And who will provide the marketing for artificial trees? And those cute little nativity scenes (Dear Lord Baby Jesus)? And tinsel... for crying out loud, how will I remember to buy my TINSEL if someone doesn't tell me?!

All of a sudden I'm in the mood to listen to that Mad World song (the version done for Donnie Darko).
User avatar
Neal Anderth
Truck Series Driver (Pro II)
 
Posts: 895
Joined: 29 Dec 2010, 1:02 pm

Post 09 Nov 2011, 4:07 pm

The Christmas tree business tends to be a shady business. I'd hazard a guess that a 1/3 of them don't pay taxes of any kind.
User avatar
danivon
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 09 Nov 2011, 4:11 pm

Neal Anderth wrote:The Christmas tree business tends to be a shady business. I'd hazard a guess that a 1/3 of them don't pay taxes of any kind.
Well, I guess it would be. I think it is pretty unregulated, too. And a campaign to promote trees would benefit loads of people who may not be into joining an 'industry' group. It's more likely to be a sideline for farmers or small traders.

Besides, if they set up their own industry group, they might get some Hermac Cain type guy as head. How many people only heard about the NRA because of the allegations? Not good publicity for restaurateurs...
User avatar
rickyp
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 09 Nov 2011, 4:20 pm

Often the agricultural department serves to facilitate coordinating a wide spread group of farmers into a marketing group. It doesn't cost a lot, and provides enormous benefit to the agricultural category. They can afford to advertise when they organize and set industry standards that help the product category imprive. (Get rid of the shady practices...)
Usually they grow into a self financed cooperative group and quickly leave the umbrella of the government. But until the have the organizational structure, communications and funding in place it doesn't happen. (It can happen in industry groups without government involvement, but hundreds of farmers could have a tougher time with the initial organization than say car dealers...) {lus promoting the product grows the whole category ...and an apples an apple. A trees a tree... Brands aren't usually vital in agriculture.
I'd guess that tree farmers were writing their congressmen and demanding help. And Congress was being responsive.
15 cents on a tree ? A scotch pine goes for $40.
User avatar
bbauska
Administrator
 
Posts: 7390
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 09 Nov 2011, 4:43 pm

The question should be "why the need for a government tax?"

If an industry wants to cooperate and develop the structure needed to cooperate, that is fine. Build the cost of this into your product price.
User avatar
Neal Anderth
Truck Series Driver (Pro II)
 
Posts: 895
Joined: 29 Dec 2010, 1:02 pm

Post 09 Nov 2011, 5:18 pm

I could easily imagine many small time sellers only doing 300 units, so what's the man hours to figure out how and where to send the $45, and what does it cost to receive it and provide compliance oversight.
User avatar
danivon
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 09 Nov 2011, 5:47 pm

Zero, Neal. The fee only applies over 500 units.
User avatar
bbauska
Administrator
 
Posts: 7390
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 09 Nov 2011, 5:51 pm

OK, interpolate. $75 per vendor. Will the cost of this exceed the overhead?
User avatar
danivon
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 09 Nov 2011, 7:52 pm

I don't know. Would a calculator, a stamped envelope and the ink on a cheque come to $75?

Oh, and extrapolate would be a more appropriate word...
User avatar
Neal Anderth
Truck Series Driver (Pro II)
 
Posts: 895
Joined: 29 Dec 2010, 1:02 pm

Post 09 Nov 2011, 8:40 pm

Well if you over pay the government it is suppose to send you a refund. That costs. You can't possibly be defending this tax. It would probably cost less to not even collect the tax and just throw some money at the Christmas Tree awareness campaign. How does that even work without pissing everybody off? A federal advertising campaign to promote 'holiday trees' would be a whole heap of stupid controversy.

Shouldn't you also oppose this on climate change grounds? Do you want twice as many people taking in Christmas trees?