knabe
Well-known member
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/11/08/obama-couldnt-wait-his-new-christmas-tree-tax/
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.
that act should be revoked.
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRD3479032
other commodities raised or produced on farms, as determined appropriate by the Secretary;
i recommend reading the act, it's pretty interesting and almost sounds like a dictatorship.
really it's just jobs for lawyers to create the document and federal workers to implement and maintain the program.
i can't believe we have allowed our government to get involved in this level of minutia.
all of these people will probably make more than the people selling christmas trees. a complete and utter joke.
perhaps they seek to outlaw independent promotion. disgusting.
in the comment section, a good point is brought up that it is discrimination. what about commodities for other religions? yeah, it's a stretch, but christians are funding the elimination of their religion.
on the other hand, people could just label the trees holiday trees and circumvent the tax. at which point, the administration would sue them at a cost that exceeds the revenue generated from the tax. maybe that's part of the goal.
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.
that act should be revoked.
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRD3479032
other commodities raised or produced on farms, as determined appropriate by the Secretary;
i recommend reading the act, it's pretty interesting and almost sounds like a dictatorship.
really it's just jobs for lawyers to create the document and federal workers to implement and maintain the program.
i can't believe we have allowed our government to get involved in this level of minutia.
all of these people will probably make more than the people selling christmas trees. a complete and utter joke.
perhaps they seek to outlaw independent promotion. disgusting.
in the comment section, a good point is brought up that it is discrimination. what about commodities for other religions? yeah, it's a stretch, but christians are funding the elimination of their religion.
on the other hand, people could just label the trees holiday trees and circumvent the tax. at which point, the administration would sue them at a cost that exceeds the revenue generated from the tax. maybe that's part of the goal.