I was scooped yesterday but I can't help but post this (Tax to promote):
Following an extended debate that pit one region against another, 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. Or, at least, trees that once were living, as opposed to the artificial kind that have seized an increasing share of the holiday market. ...
My ears are tingling ...
Akin to similar programs that promote milk, beef and cotton, the new Christmas tree program will impose on U.S. domestic producers and importers an initial fee of 15 cents per tree.
If demand is relatively inelastic then consumers will end up paying most of that additional $0.15 per tree. Where is Congress on this one?
A 12-member board will direct the money to generic ads and other promotions, as well as research. The promotions, according to the Agriculture Department, will present "a favorable image of Christmas trees to the general public," with the intent of improving the public "perception" of Christmas trees and, hence, their sales. ...
I'd like to do some public perception research on those trees.
Fresh-tree sales declined overall from 37 million in 1991 to 31 million in 2007, according to the Agriculture Department. Artificial tree sales, meanwhile, nearly doubled to 17.4 million from 2003 to 2007.
Competitively, the live-tree and artificial-tree sectors have not always stayed in the holiday spirit, with advocates of each warning about the drawbacks of the other. ...
Grinches.
Nationwide, there are about 12,000 commercial Christmas tree farms, with production particularly heavy in North Carolina and Pennsylvania.
Many sellers, homogeneous product, free entry ... price takers (my newest example of a competitive market). Although, everyone knows that North Carolina trees are of much better quality.
Of the 565 comments submitted to the Agriculture Department, 398 supported the proposal, 147 were opposed and the remainder fell into other categories.
Some sentiment broke along state lines. Grower organizations in North Carolina and 18 other states and regions supported the new industry program, while growers in Texas and Vermont opposed it. ...
Vermont and Texas? Huh? Baptists and bootleggers.
The proposal provoked other kinds of debate. One opponent called a Christmas tree a religious symbol that should not be recognized by the government. Another said the mandatory fee assessment infringed on individual freedom, and a third said Texas was a "sovereign state" whose growers should be exempt.
Three comments:
- The baby Jesus has nothing to do with Santa Claus. A Christmas Tree is a pagan religious symbol so we really shoudn't call it a Christmas Tree, I'd rather go with Winter Soltice Tree.
- The value of the loss of individual freedom is less than $0.15 per year, assuming you buy a Christmas Tree. My outrage is outraged.
- Is there any chance we could have a referendum on Texas as a sovereign state? I'd vote yes just so I wouldn't live in the same country as the Cowboys.
