Tax on Christianity
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
November 9th, 2011 at 2:19 pm
Don’t worry, Hanukkah Menorahs will be next.
November 9th, 2011 at 2:55 pm
And we need a new Federal Christmas Tree Promotion Board, why? Idiots. Can’t the producers and importers create their own private industry board and not add to the already grossly bloated Federal bureaucracy?
November 9th, 2011 at 3:00 pm
The Christmas Tree Promotion Board is needed to promote the purchase of Christmas trees by Jews, Muslims and Buddhists, obviously.
November 9th, 2011 at 3:17 pm
Are these things different then the “holiday trees” that are found in PC office buildings around the US?
I’m pretty sure the term Christmas tree was found to be rasist or gender bias or culturally insensitve or something by the cool kids several years back.
November 9th, 2011 at 3:32 pm
@Greg
The PDF released by the DOA has a paragraph describing how they tried 3 times in the past to create a voluntary board, and failed all 3 times due to lack of voluntary contributions. So they decided they needed some “force” to compel a mandatory one on everybody. Makes sense in a perverted sort of logic. This is a sure sign of corporatism in the government. If this doesn’t irk a person, they are probably a zombie already.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-11-08/pdf/2011-28798.pdf
Under the last paragraph of “Need for a Program” page 3:
“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.”
November 9th, 2011 at 3:44 pm
Soooo, the Chirsmas Tree Promotional industry needed a bailout. Were they too big to fail too?
Because I can’t see the dire, critical need to have taxpayer money support such an organization.
November 9th, 2011 at 3:58 pm
So, because the VOLUNTARY participation in a program was not enough to satisfy the lobbying organization, the lobbyists decided that they needed a permanent source of income taken by force…..
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/obama-administration-to-delay-new-15-cent-christmas-tree-fee/
“The fee, requested by the National Christmas Tree Association in 2009,…”
November 9th, 2011 at 4:20 pm
So what’s the problem here? Isn’t free market capitalism what people want? So the live Christmas tree board has better lobbyists that the artificial Christmas tree board and I’m supposed to feel sorry for them? The live christmas tree board figures out a way to get free advertising and have someone else do their work for them. Sounds like a solid capitalist business plan to me. Survival of the fittest, he who dares wins and all that.
November 9th, 2011 at 4:50 pm
The most offensive thing here is not the inane idea to levy a tax on Christmas trees, but that the Executive Branch has the power to impose a tax.
Team Obama, as always, just ignores the Congress when it gets in the way of its socialist agenda.
November 9th, 2011 at 5:40 pm
What I want to know is why the hell the Federal government / Obama admin felt the need to involve itself in this at all.
If fake trees are outselling real ones because consumers want them and those selling real ones can’t do a good job of marketing that sounds like good old capitalism to me.
It sounds to me like the X-mas tree industry couldn’t / wouldn’t promote their product through voluntary participation in their promotional board, so they decided to enlist government thugs to compel it. Yay crony capitalism.
November 9th, 2011 at 5:51 pm
With reference to an old inside-joke: real Christians get real Christmas trees, and fake Christians get fake Christmas trees.
Thus, this is obviously a tax on ‘real Christians’.
More seriously: I have usually acquired Christmas trees from a local charity that was accepting donations. The trees were donated by a supplier, and the people who wanted trees would be encouraged to donate a minimum amount.
Would the tax cover this situation? After all, there really isn’t a sale occurring.
I can’t recall ever seeing any paperwork even at the local flower-and-landscape business that sold Christmas Tress for a profit.
This particular charity is small enough that the whole operation could probably be done without a paper trail. Will paper-trail-free Christmas Trees become common?
November 9th, 2011 at 6:19 pm
I think, if you turned over enough rocks, that most agricultural subsidies work just like this. It’s a little less ‘free market’ than it looks, like the architects’ guild in The Fountainhead. Easy, legal way to squeeze out little guys who are making an anti- syndicalist pest of themselves. What if I want to take my chances as an independent tree farmer, unpromoted? You don’t get that option. Join or get bored. Borered.
But, yeah, the government isn’t the originator of sin. Only the collector and enforcer; sort of an everyman’s Black Hand.
November 9th, 2011 at 6:38 pm
Chris Says:
November 9th, 2011 at 4:20 pm,
Some of us want the “Crony” out of “Crony Capitalism”.
November 9th, 2011 at 6:51 pm
Sounds more like you want more government regulation to me Comatus and TomcatTCH. This is what business does. Business wins at any cost. That’s the goal. Little guys get squished and big guys convince governments that their too big to fail or to do their work for them. That’s the free market. No interference, no fair play, just win. You gotta take every advantage you can get.
November 9th, 2011 at 6:52 pm
“So what’s the problem here? Isn’t free market capitalism what people want.”
No, people want everyone else to be forced to buy their products.
November 9th, 2011 at 8:22 pm
So we can’t have any religion (or just Christians) invloved in Government, but we can tax them. Typical.
I like calling it the “Grinch Tax”.
“and was meant to pay for a new board tasked with promoting the Christmas tree industry. It was supported by Christmas tree growers, who wanted a stable source of revenue to fund a new marketing campaign.”
So this is a way to tax Christians, which is nothing short of discrimination, so small business owners who sell Christmas trees can have a steady source of income and end up forming the Christmas Tree Labor Union which will drive the price of trees through the roof and it will drive the quality down to the point that a tree will cost $500.00 and will look like Charlie Brown’s Christmas tree.
I have a better idea. Find a job that you can depend on ALL YEAR!!!
November 9th, 2011 at 9:45 pm
Fox is now reporting that His Imperial Majesty, probably realizing that he has an election next year, has put the kibosh on this.
November 9th, 2011 at 10:01 pm
You’re not serious when you call this a tax on Christians are you?
Are you?
The christmas tree is a pagan symbol of fertility. I’m pretty sure baby jesus doesn’t give a fuck about christmas trees.
November 10th, 2011 at 12:36 am
@18, Well, on Lutherans, then. That ought to count.
Chris @14, come over here and say that. What part of “government is the collector and enforcer” can you twist into a call for more government? Somewhere a town square is missing its Occupier, and your tent is all set up.
November 10th, 2011 at 1:27 am
El Bombardero, you’re new here aren’t ya?
November 10th, 2011 at 10:34 am
The Federal Christmas Tree Promotion Board will have an armed SWAT team.
November 10th, 2011 at 11:31 am
Chris, can you please explain to me how opposing “Federal Government imposes a tax to create a board that businesses in the industry didn’t care enough about to fund” turns into “Comatus and TomcatTCH want more government regulation”?
I dont follow how opposing regulation equals calling for more regulation.
November 10th, 2011 at 11:37 am
North, you made me laugh out loud. Cruel and unusual.
Dasher, Dancer, Prancer, Vixen, Comet, Cupid, Donner and Blitzen. And a Crimson Trace noselamp. Chimney entry.
November 10th, 2011 at 12:25 pm
Wizardpc- I’m trying to point out that it was the industry that requested the commission in the first place. If the current political system allows businesses to lobby for, or buy a mandate that helps their business in the form of a mandatory tax or a forcing of consumers to buy their product it sounds like a pretty large amount of business freedom to me. In this case the live tree lobby successfully competed and defeated the artifical tree lobby. Why would regulation against allowing businesses to do such a thing be necessary? Which is what it sounds like commenters are calling for.
November 10th, 2011 at 4:12 pm
You’re confusing a industry trade association with an industry.
This would be like the AARP asking seniors to join and then getting government to mandate that anyone over 50 must join the AARP when not enough seniors sign up.
November 10th, 2011 at 5:07 pm
I’m not confusing anything. I’m saying they are one and the same. What do you think the purpose of having a trade organization is? Your example using the AARP is a little muddier as they represent such a diverse group of businesses with a different business models, but In this instance the trade group directly represents the businesses that with benefit from the legislation. Another route they could take is raising prices on live christmas trees 15 bucks and using it for the ad council. As that would cause potential problems with their image and customers they use the trade industry to pressure the gov to do it for them, therefore eliminating any problems they themselves will have with their business. The government becomes the bad guy. It’s a great model if you can get away with it.
November 10th, 2011 at 6:15 pm
From the article:
The way I interpret that is that the industry association asked for donations, and those requests were denied. So instead of laying off it, they went to the fedgov.
This is the crony part, not the capitalism part. The capitalism part was when the tree growers said “No, we don’t want to pay for your stupid ad campaign.”
November 10th, 2011 at 6:48 pm
I read that part too. While I acknowledge that your interpretation is valid, I interpret it to mean that the tree growers said no way, that will eat into our profits and if we pass the cost along it will hurt business more and make us look bad to the customers. “You” the trade association, go ask the bureaucrats to make it a tax or something and take the burden off us. Go buy someone. A scenario that further illustrates my point above at 26. That’s capitalism unchecked. I think we can argue this forever, but I at least hope you see my point about more regulation which was your initial question. I maintain there is no such thing as “crony capitalism” only capitalism. You can say the government is corrupt, but don’t complain when the government does what the businesses ask of them.
November 10th, 2011 at 9:31 pm
Chris, your English is a bit hard to understand. A crony is a nefarious friend. Capitalism is an economic system based on supply and demand and market forces. When the government steps into the market, any market, to the advantage of one nefarious friend, when there are several other folks involved in similar business ventures or industries, that is crony capitalism.
A tax on live trees paid by the growers of live trees tothe government, to support government live tree advertising, is crony capitalism. It is taxation and advertising that favors the live tree industry over the zombie, errr, dead, err, fake tree industry.
Why should the government be involved in this market competition between two types of trees? Where are they given power to forcibly tax live tree growers, or to spend to benefit live tree sellers, in the Constitution?
November 10th, 2011 at 10:00 pm
Chris, I could recommend a book to you. But I already did. I hear it’s now available as a graphic novel.
There is no need for a government regulation to prevent government from intervening on the part of a cartel. You’d just need to keep government from having that influence to peddle. Obviously you’re overthinking this.
November 11th, 2011 at 4:56 pm
As much as I love railing on the administration for their mistakes, this isn’t one of them.
http://adage.com/article/news/drudge-grinch-ruined-christmas-tree-farmers/230968/
“the effort was led by the National Christmas Tree Association itself, which touts support from over 70% of the industry.
Familiar campaigns such as “Got Milk?” and “Beef: It’s What’s for Dinner” are the result of similar checkoff programs — and a testament to their power. They allow industries to engage in national marketing campaigns that would be impossible at a local level. From blueberries to soybeans, over 15 such programs exist. In most cases, they are supported by a vast majority of their industries.”
November 12th, 2011 at 10:41 am
Christmas trees have as much to do with Christianity as Halloween has to do with All Hallows Eve.
Last time I checked the whole Christmas thing is a new thing, and Christianity was fine (probably better) without it.
November 12th, 2011 at 10:41 am
Oh, sorry, forgot the obligatory BAH HUMBUG!