I’m not sure why yesterday’s Christmas tree tax story struck such a chord (with me and everybody else in the blogosphere, apparently). I mean, it’s a $0.15 tax on something you buy once a year. What’s the big deal?*
A new USDA program would be set up and the secretary of agriculture would appoint a board to oversee promotion of live Christmas trees. That’s a PITA. But hey, what’s one more government program and 18 more pages of regulation among so many? “Got Milk?,” “Pork: The Other White Meat,” and “Beef, It’s What’s for Dinner” (among others) are already imposed via government regulations and taxes and we’re not exactly dying or going bankrupt or being sent to labor camps because of them.
In part I’m sure the fascination just came from the colossal ham-handedness of the Obama administration. Seriously, people. Putting a tax on Christmas when we’re in the fourth year of the Great Recession? Then going OOPSIE! and un-putting the tax until January? Does this administration never consider how its decisions are going to look to the rest of us? Does it never think things out in advance?
Still, when you consider everything from ObamaCare to assassinations of American citizens without a hint of due process, paying a nickel and a dime more for a tree … well, it pales.
Nevertheless, the whole business had a peculiarly bad smell about it — and it’s a stench that a certain Mr. Orwell would have sniffed out in an instant.
I’m far from being an investigative reporter, but when I learned that there is actually an organization called the National Christmas Tree Association and that some of its members initiated this idea of getting the government to force their members to pay for advertising, I just had to ask some questions.
I was surprised to get a response — and a fairly fast one — from the NCTA’s PR guy. I have to say kudos for his responsiveness; yesterday must not have been the easiest day for anybody associated with that tax-on-Christmas fiasco. He sent along an industry statement and even cc’d my email to one of the growers who most vigorously promoted the plan in case she wanted to answer my question about why — if this is something the tree farmers themselves want, they don’t just band together, raise the money and promote away. I haven’t heard from that lady yet and don’t know whether I will.
In my email, I called the new, mandatory fee a tax. The PR man responded (caps and punctuation his): “It is NOT A TAX Claire. It is a checkoff program like many other crops have. It is simply an effort by farmers to pool their dollars to promote their crop and fund research. IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with taxes.”
I’ve heard the term “checkoff” in these contexts before. But I never gave two seconds’ thought to what it meant. Sounds voluntary, though, doesn’t it?
And sure enough, when I went to the National Agricultural Law Center, here’s what they had to say:
Checkoff programs, also referred to as research and promotion programs, promote and provide research and information for a particular agricultural commodity without reference to specific producers or brands. The term “checkoff” is derived from programs that were not mandatory; producers marked a checkoff box if they wished to contribute to the program. Mandatory programs do not have such forms, but the name has remained.
So there you have it. A voluntary act was turned into a mandatory one, but the name was kept. Sounded better, apparently.
Just like it’s supposed to sound better when the IRS tells you that paying income tax is voluntary, even though they’ll hurt you if you don’t do it. Just like it’s supposed to sound better to be detained than arrested, even though these days being “detained” can put you in durance vile for years without charges.
But that’s getting off the topic. The point is: everything is okay because it’s a checkoff and not a tax!
The .pdf position statement the PR guy sent along also states, in bold, “The program is not expected to have any impact on the final price consumers pay for their Christmas tree.”
Yeah, I know it’s only $0.15. But has there ever been an instance in the course of all human history when the costs of taxes and regulations have not eventually been passed along to the customer? Why lie about it?
Then there’s the matter of the new government-appointed board-to-be. The position statement refers to them as “… an independent 12-member board of small business owners who grow and sell farm-grown Christmas trees.” Well, since we’re talking Christmas trees, not huge industrial operations, maybe they really will be small business people — before they’re appointed to the board. But as The Ethicurian points out, it’s typical for the biggest producers, the ones who “contribute” the most money to the programs, to have an outsized say.
Opportunities to use this position of power to screw over smaller competitors are rife. And even though the Christmas tree board will at first be administering “only” about $2 million of government-channeled money (infinitely smaller than some of the other big ag boards), they’ll still have reason to be more loyal to government, the All-Provider, than to their much smaller and less powerful fellows in the tree farming business.
The one question I keep asking still hasn’t been answered: If this is really something the farmers themselves want, then why don’t they just band together and do it? Why involve the government?
Of course, the answer to that is obvious. Some growers don’t want to be taxed for promotion. They wouldn’t “checkoff” the checkoff box if they were given a chance. As the recession has affected us all, genuinely voluntary efforts to promote real Christmas trees have fallen in recent years. So all this is is an attempt by some growers to force the rest to promote their products.
For now, the whole business has been put on hold. And who knows? Maybe the Christmas tree tax will actually die the ignoble death it deserves. It would be nice if all the other government-regulated, government-sponsored, and yes, government-taxed industry promotions die with it.
But here it stands as a perfect example of how Big Government, big regulation, and big power accumulate out of small lies for the small benefit of small people.
Yes, Mr. Orwell would recognize involuntary “checkoffs” that have “ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with taxes.” And he’d recognize all the rest of the sleazy — and oh-so-typical — baubles hanging off this particular Christmas tree.
They are what makes the governmental, crony-capitalistic world go round.
* ADDED: Here is Silver with his usual astute analysis of the real, hidden costs. He also quotes and links to many angry comments about this program from Christmas tree growers.
—–
I do thank the NCTA for responding. If anyone from the organization gets back to me with anything more that’s real and informative, I’ll post it.
This tax will eventually happen. It’ll ride in on the skirttail of some 2000-page bill that no Congressperson will read — put there by the new bureaucratic Christmas tree board.
Just a quick clarification one one teensy point (yes, I’m a nit-picker).
Claire wrote, “But has there ever been an instance in the course of all human history when the costs of taxes and regulations have not eventually been passed along to the customer?”
Taxes eventually harm everyone but their first impact is on “man-as-producer,” not “man-as-consumer.” Since the price being charged is already as high as customers are willing to pay, new taxes have to be absorbed by the producer (yes, even sales taxes).
The producers must reduce their purchase of “producer’s goods.” Because of supply and demand the price paid for producer’s goods goes down.
What is the largest class of producer’s goods? Labor! Time to cut wages or lay off employees to make up for the tax.
Production goes down (making everyone poorer). When the supply declines the price goes up. The stingiest consumers (like me) are no longer in the market.
So the formula is: higher taxes = payroll cuts coupled with higher prices for consumer goods. This, no doubt, is the perfect scheme to get us out of the current “economic downturn.”
With all due respect, it’s not just $0.15, and at least some of the small growers understand all too well what is actually happening. See
http://community.mises.org/silver/2011/11/10/unseen-effects-and-public-comments-on-the-christmas-tree-tax/
I think people were outraged because they perceive this president as being “anti-Christian.” (They don’t understand that government is “anti-citizen.”) So when the news about the tax came out, the conservatives went nuts.
Unrelated, but your mention of Orwell today made me think about how fast the present seems to be catching up to the (dystopian) future (in my novel.) That recent article circulating online about “smart” streetlights that can broadcast “messages” and track people made me think that I’m not writing a near-future dystopian novel anymore, but a current-day political thriller. 😉
Water Lily has it correct, governments are anti-citizen. Much like other organized crime they’re nice to people who follow their rules.
Did you see the Best Buy uniform prank? Sadly, it’s less offen you can say a cop did good, but I love his two quotes: “we’re not going to arrest anybody for wearing a blue polo shirt” and “so, there’s really no reason for us to be here”. Here’s the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgUIbPfhSuo&feature=player_embedded#!
Excellent observations, as usual.
Here’s another from The Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/11/the-christmas-tree-tax-worst-public-relations-idea-of-the-year-or-ever/248195/.
Jim Bovard, who got his start writing on ag issues and still knows a huge amount about the USDA and its methods, says not to blame the Obama administration for this. I’m hoping he’ll weigh in later, either here in the comment section or on his own blog.
-S — I added that link to the blog post. Astute as always. And the comments from growers are very telling.
The answer is, buy artificial trees produced by 12year olds in Bangladesh.
I always thought that people that want real U.S. tree farm grown Chistmas trees bought them. Once the market is saturated there isn’t much that can be done except cut back production. A Christmas tree that has not been cut will stay fresh for years.
This is the same kind of crap that USDA sanctioned committees have been
doing for decades. The routine work of committees – and their power to
tax fellow producers – is an outrage.
Court cases challenging those “checkoffs” have made it at least to
federal appellate courts – I have forgotten whether the Supremes have
designed to rule on the issue. Some of the lawyers challenging those
powers made @eloquent arguments – James Moody was one involved with that in the 1990s.
Did the Obama White House have any role in approving this Xmas tree
checkoff? My impression is that the ag. producer committees pretty
much worked on their own – exploiting govt. authority to tax their
fellow producers but otherwise not popping up on the radar. You’re
right that these committees never should have been permitted to
becoming tinhorn dictators with taxing authority.
I expect there will be more hard facts coming out on this in the next
day or two… – maybe the White House was more involved – but I would be surprised if they had any significant role on this.
PS Actually, I didn’t start hitting USDA vigorously until I’d been writing for some years. I was thrashing the Postal Service (along with teacher unions, the Arts and Humanities Endowments, and CETA) before I first wrote on ag stuff for Readers Digest.
Slightly more coherent response to the controversy –
http://jimbovard.com/blog/2011/11/10/christmas-tree-tax-bum-rap-for-obama-probably/
they should add a mistletoe tax
that way you could get kissed while you are getting f*******
I’d hate to see them start taxing that kind of activity on a piece rate.
I have decided to vote with my wallet on what I think of this new “checkoff” totally involuntary TAX that will eventually find its way to my wallet. I have bought an artificial tree that will last the rest of my life and then some. I won’t be paying one penny for the new TAX to supposedly promote Christmas.
I learned that Proctor and Gamble spends north of 20% of their income on advertising. That means 64 cents of the $3.20 I pay for Tide goes to “promotion.” They call it “promotion” — I call it a tax!
Boycott Tide! Boycott Christmas trees!
As long as they don’t ask the government to collect it on the unwilling …