| Author | Message | ||
     Ferris_von_bueller |
Obama Couldn’t Wait: His New Christmas Tree Tax 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. Nobody is saying President Obama doesn’t have authority to impose his new Christmas Tree Tax — his Administration cites the Commodity Promotion, Research and Information Act of 1996. Just because the Obama Administration has the legal power to impose its Christmas Tree Tax doesn’t mean it should do so. The economy is barely growing and nine percent of the American people have no jobs. Is a new tax on Christmas trees the best President Obama can do? And, by the way, the American Christmas tree has a great image that doesn’t need any help from the government. http://blog.heritage.org/2011/11/08/obama-couldnt- wait-his-new-christmas-tree-tax/ | ||
| Crusty |
Are you seriously whining about a 15 cent tax on a Christmas tree? You need to get out and go for a ride. | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
Crusty, your name serves you well for you have lost your ability to think clearly. Where in the above post do you read anything that came from my hands??? I think not. Therefore, it is not me doing the whining. I'm happy to pay any and all taxes asked by my government. In fact, I would love to get up every morning at this un-Godly hour just to give all my income to the government so they can promote Christmas trees and anything else they deem worthy. | ||
| Johnnymceldoo |
People getting the government they deserve. | ||
| Boliver |
United we stand. Divided WILL fall. | ||
| Pwnzor |
Now you all owe me $0.15 each. | ||
| Buellerandy |
Screw the .15, Im sick of all the excuses being made FOR taxes. A sales tax should be all they need on a damn christmas tree. | ||
| Notpurples2 |
Oh crap. The cost of a cheap Lowes christmas tree just went up 1/4 of 1%! Ferris, I'm assuming you wrote the title of the thread. It kinda implies at least a little bit of shock and disbelief at the outrageous 15cent "fee" on christmas trees. I can't believe this is an issue. It's not even a percentage tax, just a fee of a few cents. And it sounds like they're going to use the funds to encourage more people to buy trees grown here in the US rather than buying cheap plastic trees from China; A good thing. But Obama is behind it so its bad. I don't have figures but I'd imagine that the real christmas tree market has gone downhill in the last several years. I know that personally it's not always easy to justify buying a real tree every year when I can buy a plastic one for less. And I'd only have to buy it once. It's even harder that I'm buying the things at a time when I'm also budgeting for gifts for family and friends. For me the smell of a real tree and the thought of the money staying in the community when I buy from a local grower are enough. But for others the cost, effort, hazards, and clean-up associated with real trees just isn't worth it. 15cents isn't even a percent increase in the price. No one would notice if it wasn't shouted from the roof tops as a grave injustice (which I'm sure right-wing talk show host will do). (Message edited by notpurples2 on November 09, 2011) | ||
| Xdigitalx |
At least its being paid for with new tax money and not added to the existing. | ||
| Cowboy |
Just another way to destroy christmas--He hates Jesus | ||
| Slaughter |
Every time a tax is paid on a Christmas tree, the Scandanavian baby Jesus cries. | ||
| Notpurples2 |
This is a joke. A boy begs his father to get him a Christmas tree this year. Each year, the boy asks and the father tells him, "I don't want to pay for it." But the son kept begging. Unable to bear his son's whining, he picks up his axe one day and heads out of the house. Thirty minutes later he returns with a great big Christmas tree. "How did you cut it down so fast?" his son asks. "I didn't cut it down," the father replies. "I got it at a tree lot." "Then why did you bring an axe?" "Because I didn't want to pay." | ||
| Chauly |
Maybe he just hates German Catholics? | ||
| Chauly |
Or maybe a pissed-off Viking? "Legend associates the first Christmas tree with St. Boniface and the German town of Geismar. Sometime in Boniface's lifetime (c. 672-754) he is said to have cut down the sacred tree of Thor in Geismar, replacing it with a fir tree which has been said to have been the first Christmas tree." Thor is upset, still... | ||
| 2008xb12scg |
15-cent fee goes to the Board appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture I don't mind the 0.15 but another board? For trees? Not sure how you can promote buying Christmas trees. Everybody already knows about them...What % of the .015 goes to the borad I wonder.. | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
Purple shock and disbelief is not the same as whining. However, if you liberals want to open up your wallets to give away your money be my guest - just don't expect me to like it. I don't care if it's one cent. My money is generated from MY LABOR and as far as I'm concerned no one has a right to a share of it (except for user fees, etc), especially to promote someone's industry. | ||
| Buellerandy |
I agree, its not the price, its the principle. Instead of curtailing un-needed expenses, they keep adding new ones. | ||
| Oldog |
new job creation at work | ||
| Guell |
Who is going to be the Christmas tree czar? | ||
| Notpurples2 |
But we're not all paying for the fees. The industry pays and then may or may not recoop the expense from their consumers. Do all of you that oppose the fee buy real trees every year? If not then this doesn't even effect you. If you do then find a seller who hasn't raised their prices or one that sells less than 500 per year. The guy I plan on buying from probably doesn't sell more than a couple hundred. If he does then I won't let this fee stop me from buying a tree from him. I'll leave it to him and the rest of the industry to decide if the fee is pointless and wrong. If they think so I'm sure they'll be speaking out. (Message edited by notpurples2 on November 09, 2011) | ||
| Sifo |
I'm assuming you wrote the title of the thread. It kinda implies at least a little bit of shock and disbelief at the outrageous 15cent "fee" on christmas trees. I can't believe this is an issue. It's not even a percentage tax, just a fee of a few cents. And it sounds like they're going to use the funds to encourage more people to buy trees grown here in the US rather than buying cheap plastic trees from China; A good thing. But Obama is behind it so its bad. It's not bad because it's being done by BO. It's bad because it's one more example (admittedly a small one) of the federal government trying to use it's power to pick winners and losers. It's wrong on principle. Is there anyone in this country that doesn't know about Christmas trees? How can the government actually "help". The scariest nine words really are “I’m from the Government and I’m here to help”. | ||
| Buellkowski |
Read the words, folks, rather than listening to how "fair and balanced" FOX News spins it. 7 CFR Part 1214 [Doc. No. AMS–FV–10–0008–FR–1A] RIN 0581–AD00 Christmas Tree Promotion, Research, and Information Order AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This rule establishes an industry-funded promotion, research, and information program for fresh cut Christmas trees. The Christmas Tree Promotion, Research, and Information Order (Order) is authorized under the Commodity Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 1996 (1996 Act). The Order will establish a national Christmas Tree Promotion Board (Board) comprised of 11 producers and one importer. Under the Order, producers and importers of fresh cut Christmas trees will pay an initial assessment of fifteen cents per Christmas tree. Producers and importers that produce or import less than 500 Christmas trees annually will be exempt from the assessment. A referendum will be conducted, among producers and importers, three years after the collection of assessments begin to determine if Christmas tree producers and importers favor the continuation of this program. DATES: Effective November 9, 2011. Sounds like an industry development program to me. | ||
| Buellkowski |
Read the whole text of the Rule for the rationale of the program. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-11-08/pdf/201 1-28798.pdf | ||
| Pwnzor |
A referendum will be conducted, among producers and importers, three years after the collection of assessments begin to determine if Christmas tree producers and importers favor the continuation of this program. Are you kidding me? "We're going to tax you per unit, then in a few years we'll ASK you if you want to keep paying the tax"......??? You don't see a problem here? | ||
| Sifo |
More likely they will explain that the cost per tree must be raised to 50 cents per tree... Thanks for letting us get our foot in your door. Buellkowski, After reading the summary you posted, my opinion is unchanged. It's one more example of the government trying to pick winners and losers. Beyond that get ready for the lawsuits. Christmas trees have been recognized as a religious symbol. Thank you ACLU! What do you think is going to happen with the government promoting religious symbols? | ||
| Buellkowski |
You don't see a problem here? Read the text. "The purpose of the program will be to strengthen the position of Christmas trees in the marketplace, and maintain and expand markets for Christmas trees. A referendum will be held among eligible producers and importers to determine whether they favor implementation of the program three years after the first assessments begin. The Order will continue if favored by a majority of producers and importers voting in the referendum. The program is authorized under the 1996 Act." Sifo, I understand your free-market position on this issue. I don't see this as a US job-killing initiative. In fact, the alternative is job growth in China. | ||
| Buellkowski |
Thank you ACLU! What do you think is going to happen with the government promoting religious symbols? That is an interesting thought. | ||
| Nobuell |
The point is see is why the feds are collecting a tax to promote anything. I have heard that a similar tax is imposed to dairy producers for the same purpose. Why should the government be involved promoting specific commercial enterprises. The tree growers should establish and fund an organization to promote their own product. We need to get the feds out of non-government activities. | ||
| Chadhargis |
You guys realize it's NOT the amount of the tax...it's the tax itself. Sort of like having your wife cheat on you. Would it matter if the guy had a 3" pecker or an 8" one. It wouldn't matter, it would still be wrong. | ||
| Blake |
Outrageous. The gov't shilling for big corporations. THIS is a perfect example of the root cause of the problems we are now facing, gov't run entirely off its rails trying to be in the business of marketing for corporations. CORRUPTION!!! It is in one simple word, unconstitutional. I'd go so far as to call it "anti-constitutional". Would you gov't apologists be so unconcerned if we were forced to pay for marketing coal, oil, or pharmaceuticals? Wake up!!! Why the #%€$ does the federal gov't have an "Administrator of Agricultural Marketing" or a "Christmas Tree Promotion Board"?????? This is a likely nothing but a kickback for the big tree farming corporations. Wake up!!! |
