Damage control! Obama administration delays 15-cent Christmas tree tax. Amazing what a visit from the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come and massive amounts of phone calls and e-mails from pissed off taxpayers will do. We figure the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come showed Obama dire visions of what losing the 2012 election and getting deported to Kenya with a Christmas Tree shoved where the sun don’t shine would be like.
This post was last modified on November 9, 2011
View Comments (5)
I think Obama should sit atop the White House Tree dressed as an angel with the top of the tree shoved up his ass.
Just the top?
OK, don't care. I have a fake tree. But Obama realized that being known as the Muzzie that tried to steal Christmas wouldn't look good in the political ads.
Well this gets more and more confusing. In the earlier story, our esteemed colleague MGAP questioned my on take on this; I would like to rehash the exchange:
MGAP --
Did you read the article or have you read details from elsewhere? This article says it is mandatory and imposed by the DOA. Did I miss something? I know there is usually more to every story than what is reported by biased reporters. In this case, certainly biased to the right. What are we missing? Please good sir, elaborate if you would.
PsychoDad --
This is the story I read:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-1109-christmas-tree-wars-20111109,0,2983619.story
In relevant part: ” …the Agriculture Department on Tuesday gave the green light to a new industry-funded Christmas tree promotion program.
By taxing themselves, growers will raise $2 million a year for ads promoting the merits of real, live trees. …
” ‘We looked at what other industries have done, and how successful they’ve been.”
After three years, growers and importers will vote on whether to continue the program.’
That’s what I read. I admit I didn’t even bother reading what HF had to say.
-------
So I wasn't reading this as a "tax" at all, not in the usual sense. Interesting story at the present link tho', seems this plan dates back to Bush days. Make of that what you can!
Read the replies to the original article. Some guy who IS a tree farmer said that they do not support this-that the decrease in live tree purchases in based in several market issues including aging population, changed in ethnicity, and a terrible economy. To me, if they are already having trouble selling the trees, then why would they increase the cost, even by 15 cents? How will that help them? Since the market is changing, perhaps they should reprice their trees. Seems to me that $100+ for a tree is a little extravagant with people jobless or working at very low paying jobs.