Frankly, I think the thing is risible. The fee / tax and all the outrage.

neal

It would probably cost less to not even collect the tax and just throw some money at the Christmas Tree awareness campaign

.

I beleive the idea is that this will simply be the genesis of an industry marketing association. And why can't the Christmas tree sellers do that all by themselves?Well, the answer is that they are probably focussed on their business, and no single member has the time or resources to accomplish the task. The initial effort would create the marketing association, and the tax would provide the funds for the association to form, pay for expertise and organization, and then get on with the job of confronting the real villain in this. The evil, artificial tree manufactuers trying to put god fearing tree farmers out of business with their vile aluminum creations...
The tax, is really a levy from the marketing association ... There is a certain coercive element to this in that all trees will be taxed, where some libertarian sellers will demand to be let out and not participate in the association... (Of course they'll share in the benefits if the Association some how launches a sucesful marketing scheme that increase purchase of evregreens in December...)

rickyp wrote:neal

It would probably cost less to not even collect the tax and just throw some money at the Christmas Tree awareness campaign

.

I beleive the idea is that this will simply be the genesis of an industry marketing association. And why can't the Christmas tree sellers do that all by themselves?Well, the answer is that they are probably focussed on their business, and no single member has the time or resources to accomplish the task. The initial effort would create the marketing association, and the tax would provide the funds for the association to form, pay for expertise and organization, and then get on with the job of confronting the real villain in this. The evil, artificial tree manufactuers trying to put god fearing tree farmers out of business with their vile aluminum creations...
The tax, is really a levy from the marketing association ... There is a certain coercive element to this in that all trees will be taxed, where some libertarian sellers will demand to be let out and not participate in the association... (Of course they'll share in the benefits if the Association some how launches a sucesful marketing scheme that increase purchase of evregreens in December...)

Um, what is the evidence that the government needs to promote the sales of Christmas trees?

Furthermore, given that government generally shrinks from calling a Christmas tree a "Christmas" tree, how can it turn around and promote them?

This is just dumb. At best.

The Christmas tree farmers sought the levy. They have been hit by the increase in popularity of artificial and plastic trees over the past several decades, and they want to find a way to keep their businesses -- mostly small family farms -- going.
"I think with this program, it is going to be a positive and build up our business," said Sherry Severt Taylor, the daughter of the owner of Severt Trees in Elk Creek, Va. Severt has tree farms in Virginia and North Carolina.
"Individually, we can't afford this exposure. But as a collective group, it's going to help, and we need this help because of the artificial trees," Taylor added

.
source: http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/09/news/ec ... _tree_tax/

Seems to me that the govenment is being responsive to the needs and requests of small farmers.
What have you got against small farmers?

Nothing, it is the role of government not being followed is that is the problem...

Agreed Brad. I would argue it is the role of government to ensure that consumers have good information (say, sensible nutrition labeling, hazards associated with consumption, etc...) but not to pick a winner by promoting an industry.

By the way, Cato points out that this tax was enabled by a law passed in 1996 proposed by John Boehner! (Though you must still fault the current administration for activating it).

Don't get me wrong here. The Rs and Ds are both at fault for what Govt has become. There is plenty of blame to go around.

Government is meant to do what the people wish it to do.The notion that there is one defined role, that suits all people all the time is intrinsically rigid and doomed to fail.
In this case, a group of farmers wanted the government to facilitate the creation of a marketing board to help them continue as small businesses.
Without their help, artificial trees, made in China, would continue to seize market share for the category eventually putting those farmers out of business. With a limited amount of assistance, the industry has been enabled. They soon will have a marketing voice that can allow them to create a marketing campaign that might save their enterpises. Or even allow it to prosper.
But you'd side with the cheap labour in China over the family owned farm ? Its that laissez faire attitude that has sent jobs over seas. Its that rigid ideological approach to business that has failed so miserably.
I'd argue that it is sometimes the duty of govnernment to help domestic industries over those of imports ... because the long term benefit to the domestic economy is more important than the notion that freedom equals cheap imported christmas trees.

rickyp wrote:Government is meant to do what the people wish it to do.The notion that there is one defined role, that suits all people all the time is intrinsically rigid and doomed to fail.

Ok, I get this - by the people, for the people, and all that jazz.

In this case, a group of farmers wanted the government to facilitate the creation of a marketing board to help them continue as small businesses.

So now you're telling me that small groups with special interests should get what they want from government? Wait... that could be what we have now! (As predicted by Mancur Olson - see the Logic of Collective Action for a theory on that)! Well, regardless of what we have, I submit that is is not the ideal under which the founders wrote the rules.

Without their help, artificial trees, made in China, would continue to seize market share for the category eventually putting those farmers out of business. With a limited amount of assistance, the industry has been enabled. They soon will have a marketing voice that can allow them to create a marketing campaign that might save their enterpises. Or even allow it to prosper.

That's one hell of a lot of assumptions in this section.

But you'd side with the cheap labour in China over the family owned farm ? Its that laissez faire attitude that has sent jobs over seas. Its that rigid ideological approach to business that has failed so miserably.

It is the approach that has helped to make the U.S. and our trading partners better off. While I prefer the fresh tree every year, if my income were lower, I might just choose to invest in that Chinese tree so that I could spend more money on other things I might value, perhaps clothes for my kids, as an example (why do you choose the tree farmer over the kids? the KIDS for Christ's sake! Heh...).

I'd argue that it is sometimes the duty of govnernment to help domestic industries over those of imports ... because the long term benefit to the domestic economy is more important than the notion that freedom equals cheap imported christmas trees.

Why do you assume that protectionism is in the long-term interest of the domestic economy? That's on odd statement.

Are women in jeopardy because the Chinese are reducing the cost of high quality inflatables? A live tree is a very different experience and people will continue to use them as long as they can afford to do it.

rickyp wrote:Government is meant to do what the people wish it to do.The notion that there is one defined role, that suits all people all the time is intrinsically rigid and doomed to fail.

We defined parameters for the government. They refuse to stay within them.

Do you really think in a nation of 330,000,000 that it makes sense to hassle people about using even more Christmas trees?

So now you're telling me that small groups with special interests should get what they want from government? Wait... that could be what we have now! (As predicted by Mancur Olson - see the Logic of Collective Action for a theory on that)! Well, regardless of what we have, I submit that is is not the ideal under which the founders wrote the rules.

Any individual or group has a right to petition their law makers do they not?
Do you want to take that right away?

assumptions? What are you challenging? If its the point of manufacture of trees... a source
http://www.thedailygreen.com/going-gree ... y-american

You'll note from this article that artificial trees are primarily imported but that domestically produced artificial trees are the best for the environment..

As for your claim that laissezz free trade policies since the 80's have made the US better off (I won't argue with "trading partners since I concur that China and the Asian tigers have massively benefited from the US governments abandonment of fair trade for free trade. But the numbers regarding the disintegration of many US manufacturing industries and the subsequent erosion of other components of the industry within those sectors is well documented (A good read is "The Betrayal of American Prosperity".)
I don't think that "protectionism" is in the long term interests of any country. However I believe that when trade is conducted freely buy one side and the other games the system ...then one side benefits . American tax and corporate law was gamed thought he 80s and 90s to allow corporate executives to earn more through short term profiteering. At the same time, the blind allegiance to "free trade" proved to demonstrate that China and other trading partners gained substantially but that working class and middle class Americans were left behind their elites..
Even in this little example of "Christmas Trees" its obvious that lower rules for toxic substances imported from China allow them to corner the market on artificial trees at the expense to the domestic arteficial tree and real tree producers..
When the small farmers who want to preserve their farms and way of life ask for a little help in the form of a miniscule tax...that will allow them to form a marketing association ask for a little help against these over whelming odds... I think its in the governments interests to help them.
(BTW, the small farmers could do the same thing without governments help, its just that government has the resources that they don't to achieve the marketing fund and association with relative ease. its truly an assist by the government, nothing more)
And yes, when it helps the American domestic economy and is essentially self funded, I think the government response to a small industry makes perfect sense.
I don't think that your "interpretation" of what the founding fatehrs wrote in their original constitution is necessarily correct. I'm sure there are competing interpretations for every assumption you make about the document. Why just the other day a conservative appeals court upheld the so-called Obama Care provisions being challenged in their chambers (mandatory purchase, where miscreants are punished by additional taxation) Nor do I think that its wise to cling to the fundamental literal intrepretation of a document that was essentially a framework for governance in the 1700s , in the year 2011. If there's one thing you should know its that the original document was far from perfect. And that there was always the intent that it evolve. Perhaps the "forefathers" could not conceive how difficult their original document would make change in a nation with 50 states...

neal

Do you really think in a nation of 330,000,000 that it makes sense to hassle people about using even more Christmas trees?

I generally don't judge what products are services should be freely advertised. I understand that there should be some limitations and even censors. But I think small farmers who want to form a marketing cooperative to advertise their products should be allowed to do so.... In the same way, walnots, raisins, oranges, milk, etc. etc etc.
Further, when the govenrment can. at virtually no cost to its tax payers excepting those who buy the trees now, can facilitate these independent operators in their quest to form that cooperative effort i think its reasonable. And an example of responsive government .

NA said:

Are women in jeopardy because the Chinese are reducing the cost of high quality inflatables?

I can't imagine a more apropos analogy

rickyp wrote:Government is meant to do what the people wish it to do.

And this way lies madness. What if the people decide the government should discriminate against some group. Under your position, this would be acceptable.

rickyp wrote:Any individual or group has a right to petition their law makers do they not?
Do you want to take that right away?

No, but that's not what you said. You said people should get what they want from government, not the right to petition for what they want.

As for your claim that laissezz free trade policies since the 80's have made the US better off (I won't argue with "trading partners since I concur that China and the Asian tigers have massively benefited from the US governments abandonment of fair trade for free trade. But the numbers regarding the disintegration of many US manufacturing industries and the subsequent erosion of other components of the industry within those sectors is well documented (A good read is "The Betrayal of American Prosperity".)

Naturally, manufacturing has gone overseas - comparative advantages elsewhere are a simple truth. Having said that, more jobs have been lost in the U.S. to automation, not offshoring See article. If we somehow found a way to halt free trade, I don't believe many those off-shored jobs would be here anyway in the long run. You delay the inevitable while denying consumers both choices and lower prices in the interim.

I don't think that "protectionism" is in the long term interests of any country. However I believe that when trade is conducted freely buy one side and the other games the system ...then one side benefits . American tax and corporate law was gamed thought he 80s and 90s to allow corporate executives to earn more through short term profiteering. At the same time, the blind allegiance to "free trade" proved to demonstrate that China and other trading partners gained substantially but that working class and middle class Americans were left behind their elites..

So don't throw out the baby with the bath water. Trade barriers don't solve domestic policy issues - if anything they might exacerbate them as rent-seeking behavior is reinforced. I'm not saying that the structural changes in the U.S. economy aren't difficult to deal with but doing so via a 'buy U.S. (& Canada) campaign' would not be my solution.

Even in this little example of "Christmas Trees" its obvious that lower rules for toxic substances imported from China allow them to corner the market on artificial trees at the expense to the domestic arteficial tree and real tree producers..

I'm all for environmental protection but I also believe in a nation's sovereign right to determine what level is appropriate for them. Using environmental (and labor standards) issues as anti-trade arguments are rarely more than excuses for protectionism.

When the small farmers who want to preserve their farms and way of life ask for a little help in the form of a miniscule tax...that will allow them to form a marketing association ask for a little help against these over whelming odds... I think its in the governments interests to help them.

The governments interest? I don't know what that means. As for farm preservation, why should the federal government be involved? Land-use policy is local, where it belongs.

(BTW, the small farmers could do the same thing without governments help, its just that government has the resources that they don't to achieve the marketing fund and association with relative ease. its truly an assist by the government, nothing more)

The reason for using government is that it's coercive. As for any advertising, my guess is that the USDA contracts this stuff out, something a private organization can do as well.

And yes, when it helps the American domestic economy and is essentially self funded, I think the government response to a small industry makes perfect sense.

It doesn't 'help' the domestic economy - it's just a redistribution from christmas tree buyers to to tree growers, advertisers, and the USDA.

I don't think that your "interpretation" of what the founding fatehrs wrote in their original constitution is necessarily correct. I'm sure there are competing interpretations for every assumption you make about the document. Why just the other day a conservative appeals court upheld the so-called Obama Care provisions being challenged in their chambers (mandatory purchase, where miscreants are punished by additional taxation) Nor do I think that its wise to cling to the fundamental literal intrepretation of a document that was essentially a framework for governance in the 1700s , in the year 2011. If there's one thing you should know its that the original document was far from perfect. And that there was always the intent that it evolve. Perhaps the "forefathers" could not conceive how difficult their original document would make change in a nation with 50 states...

I actually do believe in the concept of a contextual document and I do not think that this type of tax is unconstitutional. If it were, all the lobbyists in DC would have been booted long ago. However, "providing for... the general welfare" can certainly go astray.