Agriculture Department Imposes Christmas Tree Tax

[Mevara]

Agriculture Department Imposes Christmas Tree Tax

A 15-cent tax on Christmas trees [has been imposed] in order to pay for a new board tasked with promoting the Christmas tree industry.
[...]
The board, proposed earlier this year, is the culmination of a years-long effort by the fresh Christmas tree industry to promote itself, according to the background provided in the Federal Register. The industry has faced increasing competition from producers of artificial trees, but efforts to collect voluntary contributions for a fresh-tree marketing campaign have repeatedly run out of funding. So the government stepped in to mandate a fee to support the promotion board.

This really ticks me off. The government should not be getting involved with this. This is ridiculous!!! As it says in the article "it's inappropriate for the government to be putting its "thumb on the scale," helping out the fresh-tree sellers and not the artificial-tree sellers."

[Shellfish]

The real story:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201111090001

[agzg]

Originally Posted by Mevara

Agriculture Department Imposes Christmas Tree Tax


This really ticks me off. The government should not be getting involved with this. This is ridiculous!!! As it says in the article "it's inappropriate for the government to be putting its "thumb on the scale," helping out the fresh-tree sellers and not the artificial-tree sellers."

This plan is from April, 2008. It was a Bush plan.

Stop spreading misinformation - the intent is to HELP the non-artificial Christmas Tree industry, not hurt it. It's less than 1% on what a regular tree costs (somewhere in the neighborhood of $20) and is intended to help in the same way the "Got Milk" campaign (also funded through a similar effort) helped the dairy producers of the country.

[Mevara]

Either way you want to spin it there is still a tax that will apply to Christmas trees to market them to the public. This is about the government charging the American Public to give to another organization for PR. We don't give the money we tax on gasoline back to the oil companies so they can market their product to us, we shouldn't do this with Christmas trees.

[Mevara]

Originally Posted by agzg

This plan is from April, 2008. It was a Bush plan.

Stop spreading misinformation - the intent is to HELP the non-artificial Christmas Tree industry, not hurt it. It's less than 1% on what a regular tree costs (somewhere in the neighborhood of $20) and is intended to help in the same way the "Got Milk" campaign (also funded through a similar effort) helped the dairy producers of the country.

I never said it was a Bush/Obama plan. I just happened to get the information from a source that pinned it on Obama; I would be just as upset if Bush had passed this.

I also don't agree with the tax on milk going to promote their products.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by Mevara

Either way you want to spin it there is still a tax that will apply to Christmas trees to market them to the public. This is about the government charging the American Public to give to another organization for PR. We don't give the money we tax on gasoline back to the oil companies so they can market their product to us, we shouldn't do this with Christmas trees.

Are you serious, right now?

"Got Milk" "Milk: It Does a Body Good" "The Incredible Edible Egg" "Beef: It's What's for Dinner" "Pork: The Other White Meat" are all similar programs. Programs that were created to help out a struggling AMERICAN industry (the Real Tree industry is seriously threatened right now by artificial tree makers, which mostly come from China).

We SHOULD care about helping AMERICAN companies, especially ones that are producing something as awesome and time consuming as Christmas Trees. This isn't Monsano and the Soy Bean Debacle, this is CHRISTMAS TREES. Produced by SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS. That have a 7 YEAR TURNAROUND TIME. If something isn't done NOW (and yes, promoting Real Trees via marketing WILL make an impact - ask the Dairy Industry), the industry could easily fall victim to over-production, which will drive the costs down and eventually cause it to fail.

THEN what will you do? Are you just going to get in line at Target and buy fake ones from now on?

The industry ASKED for this. They ASKED for help. And they should be helped.

FURTHERMORE, most oil consumed in the United States does not come from the United States. Most Real Trees do. We're completely dependent on oil. We're not at all dependent on Real Trees. Real Trees NEED marketing. Oil does not.

Originally Posted by Mevara

I never said it was a Bush/Obama plan. I just happened to get the information from a source that pinned it on Obama; I would be just as upset if Bush had passed this.

I also don't agree with the tax on milk going to promote their products.

Oh now I know you're full of bullshit. The first words of the article you quoted are "The Obama Administration."

Have fun with your soy milk and your fake trees. Put some more money in the coffers of Monsano, and support Chinese big business while you're at it. I hope you prefer fake bacon over real bacon, as well.

[agzg]

This is their actual argument.

A national research and promotion
program for Christmas trees would help
the industry to address the many market
problems it currently faces. According
to the Task Force, two main factors
currently affecting Christmas tree sales,
both in the domestic market and abroad,
are increased competition and changing
consumer habits.

According to additional data supplied
by the Task Force, the market share of
fresh Christmas trees in the U.S. from
1965 to 2008 has declined by 6 percent.
In comparison, the market share of
artificial trees has increased 655 percent
from 1965 to 2008.
According to the proponent data,
sales of fresh cut Christmas trees
decreased by 15 million trees from 37
million trees sold in 1991 down to 22
million trees sold in 2002. The industry
saw an increase in sales in 2003 through
2007 when the industry conducted a
voluntary marketing campaign which
was lead by a small group of producers
and retailers. This voluntary marketing
campaign saw sales rebound by 9
million trees—from 22 million trees
sold in 2002 to 31 million trees sold in
2007. Even with the strong sales
response to the marketing efforts, the
voluntary marketing program suffered
from a lack of funding.

The Christmas tree industry has tried
three different times to conduct
promotional programs based on
voluntary contributions. Each time, after
about three years, the revenue declined
to a point where the programs were
ineffective. The decline in revenue is
attributable to the voluntary nature of
these programs. Therefore, the
proponents have determined that they
need a mechanism that would be
sustainable over time. They believe that
a national Christmas tree research and
promotion program would accomplish
this goal.

Bolding mine.

[Mevara]

Originally Posted by agzg

Are you serious, right now?

"Got Milk" "Milk: It Does a Body Good" "The Incredible Edible Egg" "Beef: It's What's for Dinner" "Pork: The Other White Meat" are all similar programs. Programs that were created to help out a struggling AMERICAN industry (the Real Tree industry is seriously threatened right now by artificial tree makers, which mostly come from China).

We SHOULD care about helping AMERICAN companies, especially ones that are producing something as awesome and time consuming as Christmas Trees. This isn't Monsano and the Soy Bean Debacle, this is CHRISTMAS TREES. Produced by SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS. That have a 7 YEAR TURNAROUND TIME. If something isn't done NOW (and yes, promoting Real Trees via marketing WILL make an impact - ask the Dairy Industry), the industry could easily fall victim to over-production, which will drive the costs down and eventually cause it to fail.

THEN what will you do? Are you just going to get in line at Target and buy fake ones from now on?

The industry ASKED for this. They ASKED for help. And they should be helped.

FURTHERMORE, most oil consumed in the United States does not come from the United States. Most Real Trees do. We're completely dependent on oil. We're not at all dependent on Real Trees. Real Trees NEED marketing. Oil does not.



Oh now I know you're full of bullshit. The first words of the article you quoted are "The Obama Administration."

Have fun with your soy milk and your fake trees. Put some more money in the coffers of Monsano, and support Chinese big business while you're at it. I hope you prefer fake bacon over real bacon, as well.

So I didn't pull out the Obama part of the quote... I just took the whole quote from the article.. I will go back and modify.

Yes I do not drink cow's milk or even eat bacon (fake or not), BUT I do that for health reasons. I do plan on buying a live Christmas tree but from a local place that actually grows them in my area.

I ALWAYS try to buy American and support my local community when I can. I purchased my whole bed set from a company that hand makes them in Oregon. So does that mean to support American products we should tax them more, even if it a little bit? Increase the tariffs on imported products not American.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by Mevara

So I didn't pull out the Obama part of the quote... I just took the whole quote from the article.. I will go back and modify.

Yes I do not drink cow's milk or even eat bacon (fake or not), BUT I do that for health reasons. I do plan on buying a live Christmas tree but from a local place that actually grows them in my area.

I ALWAYS try to buy American and support my local community when I can. I purchased my whole bed set from a company that hand makes them in Oregon. So does that mean to support American products we should tax them more, even if it a little bit? Increase the tariffs on imported products not American.

It's fifteen freakin' cents per tree. FIFTEEN. Rather than bitching over $0.15, let's talk about the BILLIONS OF DOLLARS BAILOUT that the American Auto Industry got. Which is more harmful? This is a much more preferable way to help out American companies. It's an attempt to work WITH the market, instead of against it, which is what the bailout was, and what tariffs are.

I'm not saying we should have let the auto industry fail. But early intervention rather than a weak "Buy American" campaign that was really against communism more than "all imports" would have gone a lot further and saved a lot of money along the way.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Mevara

I never said it was a Bush/Obama plan. I just happened to get the information from a source that pinned it on Obama . . . .

And you passed that article along, participating in the dissimination of inaccurate information.

Originally Posted by Mevara

Either way you want to spin it there is still a tax that will apply to Christmas trees to market them to the public. This is about the government charging the American Public to give to another organization for PR.

And here is more misinformation. It is not a consumer tax. It's a commodity check-off, which at most is a tax or assessment paid by the grower, not by the consumer. (I really wouldn't worry about growers passing it on to consumers by raising the price of Christmas trees increasing by $0.15.)

And as noted, it did not originate as a government proposal. It was the growers who proposed it.

I really fail to see the issue -- other than the political one reflected in the article you linked.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

And you passed that article along, participating in the dissimination of inaccurate information.

And here is more misinformation. It is not a consumer tax. It's a commodity check-off, which at most is a tax or assessment paid by the grower, not by the consumer. (I really wouldn't worry about growers passing it on to consumers by raising the price of Christmas trees increasing by $0.15.)

And as noted, it did not originate as a government proposal. It was the growers who proposed it.

I really fail to see the issue -- other than the political one reflected in the article you linked.

Also, smaller growers (they're mostly small businesses but I'm talking tiny businesses here) that sell fewer than 500 trees annually (typically your "cut them down yourself" farms) will be exempt.

[Mevara]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

And you passed that article along, participating in the dissimination of inaccurate information.

And here is more misinformation. It is not a consumer tax. It's a commodity check-off, which at most is a tax or assessment paid by the grower, not by the consumer. (I really wouldn't worry about growers passing it on to consumers by raising the price of Christmas trees increasing by $0.15.)

And as noted, it did not originate as a government proposal. It was the growers who proposed it.

I really fail to see the issue -- other than the political one reflected in the article you linked.

OMG! I really don't care which party, who happen to be in charge, imposed it. I'll find a new f***n article that is as party unbiased as possible to replace it. I don't even belong/agree with either major political party.

I know it is only $0.15 but it always starts off small.

[Mevara]

Originally Posted by agzg

It's fifteen freakin' cents per tree. FIFTEEN. Rather than bitching over $0.15, let's talk about the BILLIONS OF DOLLARS BAILOUT that the American Auto Industry got. Which is more harmful? This is a much more preferable way to help out American companies. It's an attempt to work WITH the market, instead of against it, which is what the bailout was, and what tariffs are.

I'm not saying we should have let the auto industry fail. But early intervention rather than a weak "Buy American" campaign that was really against communism more than "all imports" would have gone a lot further and saved a lot of money along the way.

Don't get me started with the bailout of either the Auto Industry or the banks. I don't agree with either but that is not the point I was bringing up here. If you want to rehash that topic again bump the thread and we can go.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Mevara

OMG! I really don't care which party, who happen to be in charge, imposed it.

I don't either, and that's not the point I'm concerned about. The point I'm concerned about, that you either seem to be missing or not be concerned about, is relying on and passing along inaccurate and misleading information.

You clearly are upset about this plan. That's fine. It's your right to have that opinion. But I'll put it plainly: The article to which you linked was written with a strong bias and a distortion of facts -- including buzz words like "Christmas Tree tax" -- for the purpose getting readers upset. You didn't pass along news, you passed along propaganda,* and you repeated that propaganda in the title for this thread. I'd have to put this article in the same category as all those emails telling me that the FCC is is holding hearings to prohibit religious broadcasting or that the White House will now have Holiday Trees with no religious ornaments instead of Christmas Trees.



* And no, I'm not one of those people who automatically dismisses anything that comes from Fox News. But this article totally misses the mark, IMO.

[Mevara]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I don't either, and that's not the point I'm concerned about. The point I'm concerned about, that you either seem to be missing or not be concerned about, is relying on and passing along inaccurate and misleading information.

You clearly are upset about this plan. That's fine. It's your right to have that opinion. But I'll put it plainly: The article to which you linked was written with a strong bias and a distortion of facts -- including buzz words like "Christmas Tree tax" -- for the purpose getting readers upset. You didn't pass along news, you passed along propaganda,* and you repeated that propaganda in the title for this thread. I'd have to put this article in the same category as all those emails telling me that the FCC is is holding hearings to prohibit religious broadcasting or that the White House will now have Holiday Trees with no religious ornaments instead of Christmas Trees.



* And no, I'm not one of those people who automatically dismisses anything that comes from Fox News. But this article totally misses the mark, IMO.

If you will notice I already changed the source from Fox News to Global Post. I really don't know which way they swing but that was the most politically unbiased source I could find.