Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11 ... -tree-tax/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not cool. I have a great idea for people selling Xmas trees this year. After you pick your tree and they take it over to get run through that hole with the netting that goes over it, they should paint a big picture of Obama's back side so each consumer has the privilege to shove their tree right up Obama's sphincter.

Tax Christmas, that's BS.

Actually the fee was voted on by tree growers and then approved by the Department of Agriculture after the tree growers approved it. But don't let the truth get in the way of an attack on Obama.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ ... 3619.story" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I find this whole thing to be weird - some in the Christmas tree business wanted to have more money to market their products, they decide they don't want to fund it alone so they work with the USDA to arrange it so that there is a tax put in place for everyone and the proceeds will go to some generic, national ad campaign that says how great natural trees are.

Of the 565 comments submitted to the USDA, 398 supported the proposal, 147 were opposed, and the remainder fell into other categories.

Some sentiment broke along state lines. Grower organizations in North Carolina and 18 other states and regions supported the new industry program, while growers in Texas and Vermont opposed it.

"If the large wholesale growers want it, fine, but they can pay for it without reaching into the small growers' pockets," said Robert Childress of the Texas Christmas Tree Growers Association. "I feel that marketing for my products is my responsibility, and I choose to rely on my efforts."

I agree with the comment there in the quote - at least 25% of the growers didn't want this tax. Why should they be forced into a tax when they didn't want it? Why does the government, in this case, help facilitate this? Is government now a marketing Godfather?

I'm an engineer - if the National Society of Engineers decides they want to improve the image of engineering in the country with a generic national ad campaign, is this process saying that I can be singled out and basically be taxed on being an engineer simply because other engineers want people to feel better about themselves and there's enough of them to vote it into place?

That tears it...Obama is OBVIOUSLY a muslin...

GannonFan wrote:I find this whole thing to be weird - some in the Christmas tree business wanted to have more money to market their products, they decide they don't want to fund it alone so they work with the USDA to arrange it so that there is a tax put in place for everyone and the proceeds will go to some generic, national ad campaign that says how great natural trees are.

Of the 565 comments submitted to the USDA, 398 supported the proposal, 147 were opposed, and the remainder fell into other categories.

Some sentiment broke along state lines. Grower organizations in North Carolina and 18 other states and regions supported the new industry program, while growers in Texas and Vermont opposed it.

"If the large wholesale growers want it, fine, but they can pay for it without reaching into the small growers' pockets," said Robert Childress of the Texas Christmas Tree Growers Association. "I feel that marketing for my products is my responsibility, and I choose to rely on my efforts."

I agree with the comment there in the quote - at least 25% of the growers didn't want this tax. Why should they be forced into a tax when they didn't want it? Why does the government, in this case, help facilitate this? Is government now a marketing Godfather?

I'm an engineer - if the National Society of Engineers decides they want to improve the image of engineering in the country with a generic national ad campaign, is this process saying that I can be singled out and basically be taxed on being an engineer simply because other engineers want people to feel better about themselves and there's enough of them to vote it into place?

Any given election cycle at least 40% didn't vote for the elected president, should they be forced to recognize that person as the president?

DSUrocks07 wrote:

GannonFan wrote:I find this whole thing to be weird - some in the Christmas tree business wanted to have more money to market their products, they decide they don't want to fund it alone so they work with the USDA to arrange it so that there is a tax put in place for everyone and the proceeds will go to some generic, national ad campaign that says how great natural trees are.



I agree with the comment there in the quote - at least 25% of the growers didn't want this tax. Why should they be forced into a tax when they didn't want it? Why does the government, in this case, help facilitate this? Is government now a marketing Godfather?

I'm an engineer - if the National Society of Engineers decides they want to improve the image of engineering in the country with a generic national ad campaign, is this process saying that I can be singled out and basically be taxed on being an engineer simply because other engineers want people to feel better about themselves and there's enough of them to vote it into place?

Any given election cycle at least 40% didn't vote for the elected president, should they be forced to recognize that person as the president?

Apples and oranges. Electing a public official and having an industry sponsored tax for an industry related promotion aren't anywhere near the same things.

And in this case, thinking it further, if this is taken to its logical conclusion, why wouldn't the large growers, who supposedly would have the lower unit costs based on economies of scale, just push for more and more "voluntary" taxes like these. You figure the smaller growers already have smaller margins - put enough taxes in place and the smaller growers go away and the larger growers increase their market share from squeezing out competition. Again, why this needs to be government sponsored and endorsed is the problem I have with it. If the national association wants to do a national campaign then asking for donations should be enough. If they can't get enough money that way, then obviously it's not something valued by enough people.

DSUrocks07 wrote:That tears it...Obama is OBVIOUSLY a muslin...

A-f'in-men!! It's an attack on Christianity.

If you're gonna tax Christmans trees where is the tax on Matzo or locks & bagels? Where is the tax on a prayer rug?

http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/09/news/ec ... hpt=hp_bn3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

THE PEOPLE WIN!!!!

You can't tax Christmas dammit!

BOA succumbs to no debit card fees!
No Christmas Tax!
No member of Congress or the Oval Office gets re-elected! Campaign 469!!

Don't you pay taxes anyway you purchase your gifts, ornaments, tree and trimmings?

It is unAmerican to propose to tax my pagan-ritual solistice tree

Ibanez wrote:Don't you pay taxes anyway you purchase your gifts, ornaments, tree and trimmings?

Haven't you ever heard of Delaware? The home of tax-free shopping.

Religion needs a tax just like we have for the incredibly stupid, the lottery.

Well, taxes kinda are the reason for the season. Without taxes Jesus would have been born normally in the comfort of his own home. Less compelling story for sure.

bluehenbillk wrote:

Ibanez wrote:Don't you pay taxes anyway you purchase your gifts, ornaments, tree and trimmings?

Haven't you ever heard of Delaware? The home of tax-free shopping.

There's no such thing as tax free shopping. About a 1/3 of the cost of retail goods goes to pay the plethora of taxes at the local, state, and federal level.

So unless those businesses in DE are paying no property taxes, no utility taxes, no income taxes, no employee taxes, etc, etc, etc there is no such thing as tax free shopping.

BDKJMU wrote:

bluehenbillk wrote:
Haven't you ever heard of Delaware? The home of tax-free shopping.

There's no such thing as tax free shopping. About a 1/3 of the cost of retail goods goes to pay the plethora of taxes at the local, state, and federal level.

So unless those businesses in DE are paying no property taxes, no utility taxes, no income taxes, no employee taxes, etc, etc, etc there is no such thing as tax free shopping.

beat me to it. Tax free? Haha


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ibanez wrote:Don't you pay taxes anyway you purchase your gifts, ornaments, tree and trimmings?

Of course there is already a sales tax on those things. However, that's a general tax applied to most products - there isn't an additional tax, over and above the sales tax, for gifts or ornaments or tree and trimmings - that is, until this one was proposed by the more well off tree producers.

GannonFan wrote:

Ibanez wrote:Don't you pay taxes anyway you purchase your gifts, ornaments, tree and trimmings?

Of course there is already a sales tax on those things. However, that's a general tax applied to most products - there isn't an additional tax, over and above the sales tax, for gifts or ornaments or tree and trimmings - that is, until this one was proposed by the more well off tree producers.

True dat.

Plus there is a profit margin or markup on essentially everything you buy if you want to start talking about all these other non-sensical invisible taxes.

Kind of like ordering furniture anywhere other than from North Carolina - I think we saved $4,000 on our dining room & family room furniture buying the same exact thing through the manufacturer in NC versus in a store in PA - & that was before the 6% state tax.

GannonFan wrote:

Ibanez wrote:Don't you pay taxes anyway you purchase your gifts, ornaments, tree and trimmings?

Of course there is already a sales tax on those things. However, that's a general tax applied to most products - there isn't an additional tax, over and above the sales tax, for gifts or ornaments or tree and trimmings - that is, until this one was proposed by the more well off tree producers.

There's always a tax, however, is that tax passed down to the consumer in the form of a "higher" price?