Agriculture Department Imposes Christmas Tree Tax

[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.

[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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Mevara

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.

I did not notice -- it was still linked to the original story when I had last looked at it. I guess this story is better, though it repeats the Fox headline about a "Christmas Tree Tax," and cites the Fox story as a source, which seems odd to me.

But whatever. Thanks for changing the link. I'm now filing this in my "I-really-don't-get-why-this-is-a-big-deal" folder.