Obama Couldn’t Wait: His New Christmas Tree Tax [Archive] - RetrieverTraining.Net - the RTF

: Obama Couldn’t Wait: His New Christmas Tree Tax

Eric Johnson
11-08-2011, 08:54 PM


President Obama’s Agriculture Department today announced that it will impose a new 15-cent charge on all fresh Christmas trees—the Christmas Tree Tax—to support a new Federal program to improve the image and marketing of Christmas trees.

In the Federal Register of November 8, 2011, Acting Administrator of Agricultural Marketing David R. Shipman announced that the Secretary of Agriculture will appoint a Christmas Tree Promotion Board. The purpose of the Board is to run a “program of promotion, research, evaluation, and information designed to strengthen the Christmas tree industry’s position in the marketplace; maintain and expend existing markets for Christmas trees; and to carry out programs, plans, and projects designed to provide maximum benefits to the Christmas tree industry” (7 CFR 1214.46(n)). And the program of “information” is to include efforts to “enhance the image of Christmas trees and the Christmas tree industry in the United States” (7 CFR 1214.10).


11-08-2011, 09:15 PM
Wonder how many people will be involved in the new bureaucracy and what their salaries will add up to. This is one reason that the budget is just out of control. Too many civil servants. Civil servants are necessary but don't really add to the GDP. I wish our legislators would quit taking the title so literally. We need an amendment that you can't make a new law or regulation with deleting an old one.

11-08-2011, 09:22 PM
The only joke bigger than the Christmas tree tax is Obama himself.

11-08-2011, 09:26 PM
Can they really call them "Christmas" trees? Won't some be offended?

11-08-2011, 09:30 PM
Can they really call them "Christmas" trees? Won't some be offended?

Oops! sorry... winter season trees...

11-08-2011, 09:43 PM
Obama "THE GRINCH" trying to steal Christmas!
Where is the equal Muslim tax?

Gerry Clinchy
11-08-2011, 10:51 PM
Can they really call them "Christmas" trees? Won't some be offended?

Oh, FOM, that was just what I was thinking!

Or even better some Christian denomination should sue the Fed govt for taxing a religious activity! That would be a switcheroo. Maybe call in the ACLU to lead the charge?

This has got to be the biggest joke so far! We're looking to cut expenses out of the budget, and some jerk comes up with another "pork" tax? It's not like people don't know what Christmas trees are. What does one do to enhance the image of that industry? Congress gets an F for wasting time on something like this. It's insanity, for sure!

Gerry Clinchy
11-09-2011, 11:20 AM
My error, Congress did not enact this tax ... the Dept. of Agriculture did!

Wonder what makes them think that some people who have been buying live trees won't simply say "screw it", and decide to get an artificial tree this year? That ought to help the live tree producers a whole lot.

Do they really believe that people can't decide for themselves whether they want a live tree or an artificial one. Do they really believe that a PR campaign will change people's minds on that once they've made their decision?

Over time, it appears that people have gone to artificial trees somewhat due to cost of purchasing a live tree each year; the mess of the live tree in clean-up; disposal of the live tree in more congested situations in cities & burbs. As artificial trees got more "lifelike", it also made it easier for people to accept switching.

It did say that the tax does not apply to producers (or importers) who sell less than 500 trees/year. So ... if you must have a live tree, keep it to the small, local guy. Maybe more small, local guys will spring up in some places?

Our local high school band sells trees each year to raise funds for the band. Guess they will have to stay away from the big guys, too, if they want to avoid raising the price on their trees.

11-09-2011, 12:32 PM
Our local high school band sells trees each year to raise funds for the band. Guess they will have to stay away from the big guys, too, if they want to avoid raising the price on their trees.
The smart thing to do would be to go with the small producers and still raise prices to just under what folks would be paying if the tax applied and get to keep the increase.

11-09-2011, 01:16 PM
IT CAN'T BE A TAX!! You must remember Obama said he will not raise taxes on those making less than $250,000 a year. Well I guess only those buying Christmas trees make over $250,000 a year.:p

Eric Johnson
11-09-2011, 01:58 PM
It's been called off!...or at least delayed.

Obama Administration to Delay New 15-Cent Christmas Tree Tax



The U.S. Department of Agriculture is going to delay implementation and revisit a proposed new 15 cent fee on fresh-cut Christmas trees, sources tell ABC News. The fee, requested by the National Christmas Tree Association in 2009, was first announced in the Federal Registry yesterday and has generated criticism of President Obama from conservative media outlets. The well-trafficked Drudge Report is leading with the story, linking to a blog by David Addington, a former top aide to then-Vice President David Addington, at the conservative Heritage Foundation assailing the president thus: “The economy is barely growing and nine percent of the American people have no jobs. Is a new tax on Christmas trees the best President Obama can do? And, by the way, the American Christmas tree has a great image that doesn’t need any help from the government.”


11-09-2011, 04:52 PM
So now we can tag him for flip-flopping on Christmas Trees!

11-09-2011, 07:31 PM
........................The fee, requested by the National Christmas Tree Association in 2009....................

Uuuummmmm, I don't know a thing about the National Christmas Tree Association but my guess is they will be sorry they ever requested this.
Involve the government in anything and it's like letting the camel get his head inside the tent "story".

Gerry Clinchy
11-10-2011, 08:46 AM
There was mention that the Association could not raise enough funds voluntarily from members to promote this "enhancement of image" thing ... so that's why they asked DOA to do the tax.

Duh? If it's not important enough for the members, themselves, to support it ... when they are supposed to be the direct beneficiaries of it ... why should everybody else who buys a tree be asked to pay for their "advertising"? Yet another twist on crony capitalism?