Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Why the feth is the government having to support an industry that is already thriving?

That's exactly why most people want to end tax subsidies for oil companies, the most profitable and richest corporations on Earth. Obama and Democrats have repeatedly tried to end them, Republicans oppose it at every turn. Is anyone here actually more outraged by the 15 cent tax on trees? If so, that tells the rest of us a lot.

biccat wrote:
I'm glad that they were able to pin this one on Bush, because man, that was close. Obama almost had some responsibility.

I wish I had room in my sig for this.

I may try anyway.

Edit: Makes it a bit ungainly.

Edit again: That's better.

You guys act like this is the first time this has happened. In fact salmon, crab, halibut and generally all the fisheries have a marketing tax. Its pretty common actually. I mean if you've bought lumber for you more than likely paid a bit of a marketing tax.

Now they're doing it to Christmas trees...big deal.

PS
the president doesn't have the power to impose any tax on his own.

We go plastic tree. Worst of all, we prefer white, and its hard to get a good one, they are usually
Cheap white tree - looks like poop
gap
Really pricey tree - Looks fantastic but so is the price tag

You mean like yesterday when his AG said he bore no responsibility for the death of BrianT and wouldn't even apologize as the head of the organization?
How can we hold Obama responsible really for anything his administration does? 15c tax on trees, pah I heard Obama stole candy from a mother in an abortion clinic.

Dakkadan wrote:the president doesn't have the power to impose any tax on his own.

The tax is promulgated as a rule, not as a law. The enabling law was passed by Congress and the authority to enact rules under the law was given to the Executive Branch, of which the President is the head.

If the President wanted to impose a tax, he could do so without (additional) approval from Congress, so long as he complied with the enabling law.

This is the basis of all administrative law.

biccat wrote:

nectarprime wrote:Yup better blame Obama!

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201111090001

Far from a tax initiated by the Obama administration, the proposal to create an assessment on tree growers to fund a research and promotion program through the USDA was begun by the industry during the Bush administration.

If any of you could explain what Obama has to do with this, that would be great.

Media Matters is my favorite website ever.

It's like the Onion, but they pretend to be serious.

I'm glad that they were able to pin this one on Bush, because man, that was close. Obama almost had some responsibility.

Of course, you have no answer, just your typical slander.

biccat wrote:

nectarprime wrote:Yup better blame Obama!

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201111090001

Far from a tax initiated by the Obama administration, the proposal to create an assessment on tree growers to fund a research and promotion program through the USDA was begun by the industry during the Bush administration.

If any of you could explain what Obama has to do with this, that would be great.

Media Matters is my favorite website ever.

It's like the Onion, but they pretend to be serious.

I'm glad that they were able to pin this one on Bush, because man, that was close. Obama almost had some responsibility.

Bush left a pretty good wake. He's like a really loud and violent speed boat.

nectarprime wrote:Yup better blame Obama!

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201111090001

Far from a tax initiated by the Obama administration, the proposal to create an assessment on tree growers to fund a research and promotion program through the USDA was begun by the industry during the Bush administration.

If any of you could explain what Obama has to do with this, that would be great.

Because its his adminstration that actually promulgated the rule.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Bush left a pretty good wake. He's like a really loud and violent speed boat.

No it's all Obama's fault!!!!! Everything is!

nectarprime wrote:Of course, you have no answer, just your typical slander.

Presumably you agree then that the deaths of Bin Laden and Awaki belong to Bush, not Obama. I'll grant Ghadaffi, but really the seeds of the Arab Spring were started when Bush took out Saddam Hussein.

Media Matters is a group whose sole mission is to advance left-wing talking points.

Also, that's not slander. Please don't falsely accuse me of crimes.

nectarprime wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
Bush left a pretty good wake. He's like a really loud and violent speed boat.

No it's all Obama's fault!!!!! Everything is!

Well I still am not a fan of Obama at all, but I will also admit, that Bush did leave him a nice steamer on the desk before leaving. BUT, you cant continue to blame Bush, if Obama doesnt shovel the gak up either

biccat wrote:

Dakkadan wrote:the president doesn't have the power to impose any tax on his own.

The tax is promulgated as a rule, not as a law. The enabling law was passed by Congress and the authority to enact rules under the law was given to the Executive Branch, of which the President is the head.

If the President wanted to impose a tax, he could do so without (additional) approval from Congress, so long as he complied with the enabling law.

This is the basis of all administrative law.

I think you are glossing over the "Complied with the enabling law" bit. But if you want to think the president can just randomly add taxes where he wants you keep doing that. However once you consider that in practice they don't impose marketing taxes on industries that don't wish to have them. Heck the salmon fisheries in Alaska pay extra (read: more than is required) becuase marketing sells fish even bad ones as any Republican presidential nominee will tell you.

Dakkadan wrote:

biccat wrote:

Dakkadan wrote:the president doesn't have the power to impose any tax on his own.

The tax is promulgated as a rule, not as a law. The enabling law was passed by Congress and the authority to enact rules under the law was given to the Executive Branch, of which the President is the head.

If the President wanted to impose a tax, he could do so without (additional) approval from Congress, so long as he complied with the enabling law.

This is the basis of all administrative law.

I think you are glossing over the "Complied with the enabling law" bit. But if you want to think the president can just randomly add taxes where he wants you keep doing that. However once you consider that in practice they don't impose marketing taxes on industries that don't wish to have them. Heck the salmon fisheries in Alaska pay extra (read: more than is required) becuase marketing sells fish even bad ones as any Republican presidential nominee will tell you.

I don't give a flying if the industry wants it.

Obama doesn't care about Christmas Elves!

kronk wrote:Obama doesn't care about Christmas Elves!

you'r not Santa! You smell like beef and cheese!

Frazzled wrote:

Dakkadan wrote:

biccat wrote:

Dakkadan wrote:the president doesn't have the power to impose any tax on his own.

The tax is promulgated as a rule, not as a law. The enabling law was passed by Congress and the authority to enact rules under the law was given to the Executive Branch, of which the President is the head.

If the President wanted to impose a tax, he could do so without (additional) approval from Congress, so long as he complied with the enabling law.

This is the basis of all administrative law.

I think you are glossing over the "Complied with the enabling law" bit. But if you want to think the president can just randomly add taxes where he wants you keep doing that. However once you consider that in practice they don't impose marketing taxes on industries that don't wish to have them. Heck the salmon fisheries in Alaska pay extra (read: more than is required) becuase marketing sells fish even bad ones as any Republican presidential nominee will tell you.

I don't give a flying if the industry wants it.

Hey frazmataz you should save up all these little gems you post roll them into a ball and when you have something worth saying THEN post. Random GET OFF MY LAWN comments don't really make your point for you. I'm thinking if you posted them all at once I might be able to find something in them to make a discussion out of.

As for your latest bleep filled gem. Ill simply say marketing tax had been around for a long time. They've been doing it for a long time now. Obama didn't invent it. Many industries self impose their own marketing tax anyway. Especially if the feds won't do one, and sometimes in addition to the federal one. It is a standard that has been around for a while... a long while. This wont change no matter how bad you want to take your country back.

Presumably you agree then that the deaths of Bin Laden and Awaki belong to Bush, not Obama. I'll grant Ghadaffi, but really the seeds of the Arab Spring were started when Bush took out Saddam Hussein.

How? Most FP experts believe that the Tunisian coup dominoed into the Egyptian coup and that the global recession compacted previously existent antigovernment sentiment which lead to a massive international protest movement. How exactly the forceful removal of a dictator followed by a civil war in Iraq led to a series of peaceful anti government pro growth protests is beyond me. It certainly wouldn't have made it seem more safe to depose a dictator whose counts anti exremist activity as one of the pillars of his rule.

biccat wrote:I'm glad that they were able to pin this one on Bush, because man, that was close. Obama almost had some responsibility.

Yeah yeah, we get it, Obama is truly history's greatest monster. Stupid legislation passed under his watch, his fault. Stupid legislation turned out not to have passed under his watch, he's "ducking responsibility" and "pinning it on Bush".

So Frazzled, when are you going to edit your inaccurate troll-title? Or are we still claiming he couldn't wait to pass legislation that was actually passed nearly a year before he took office?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:Presumably you agree then that the deaths of Bin Laden and Awaki belong to Bush, not Obama.

Yes, Bush totes deserves credit for Osama. Look how concerned he was with catching and killing him.

Dakkadan wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Dakkadan wrote:

biccat wrote:

Dakkadan wrote:the president doesn't have the power to impose any tax on his own.

The tax is promulgated as a rule, not as a law. The enabling law was passed by Congress and the authority to enact rules under the law was given to the Executive Branch, of which the President is the head.

If the President wanted to impose a tax, he could do so without (additional) approval from Congress, so long as he complied with the enabling law.

This is the basis of all administrative law.

I think you are glossing over the "Complied with the enabling law" bit. But if you want to think the president can just randomly add taxes where he wants you keep doing that. However once you consider that in practice they don't impose marketing taxes on industries that don't wish to have them. Heck the salmon fisheries in Alaska pay extra (read: more than is required) becuase marketing sells fish even bad ones as any Republican presidential nominee will tell you.

I don't give a flying if the industry wants it.

Hey frazmataz you should save up all these little gems you post roll them into a ball and when you have something worth saying THEN post. Random GET OFF MY LAWN comments don't really make your point for you. I'm thinking if you posted them all at once I might be able to find something in them to make a discussion out of.

As for your latest bleep filled gem. Ill simply say marketing tax had been around for a long time. They've been doing it for a long time now. Obama didn't invent it. Many industries self impose their own marketing tax anyway. Especially if the feds won't do one, and sometimes in addition to the federal one. It is a standard that has been around for a while... a long while. This wont change no matter how bad you want to take your country back.

INdustries can't impose their own tax. thats something called price fixing.
As to my stiyle of posting, hey when you're as old as I am you can post how you damn well please.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:

biccat wrote:I'm glad that they were able to pin this one on Bush, because man, that was close. Obama almost had some responsibility.

Yeah yeah, we get it, Obama is truly history's greatest monster. Stupid legislation passed under his watch, his fault. Stupid legislation turned out not to have passed under his watch, he's "ducking responsibility" and "pinning it on Bush".

So Frazzled, when are you going to edit your inaccurate troll-title? Or are we still claiming he couldn't wait to pass legislation that was actually passed nearly a year before he took office?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:Presumably you agree then that the deaths of Bin Laden and Awaki belong to Bush, not Obama.

Yes, Bush totes deserves credit for Osama. Look how concerned he was with catching and killing him.

Ity is accurate. The rule came from his administration. It could have been stopped at any time. Its his baby. Obama why do you hate Christmas?

Frazzled you troll, how dare you express your opinion and spread your lies via wiener dogs.

AustonT wrote:Frazzled you troll, how dare you express your opinion and spread your lies via wiener dogs.

The power of wiener dogs is quite compelling.

Frazzled wrote:

Dakkadan wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Dakkadan wrote:

biccat wrote:

Dakkadan wrote:the president doesn't have the power to impose any tax on his own.

The tax is promulgated as a rule, not as a law. The enabling law was passed by Congress and the authority to enact rules under the law was given to the Executive Branch, of which the President is the head.

If the President wanted to impose a tax, he could do so without (additional) approval from Congress, so long as he complied with the enabling law.

This is the basis of all administrative law.

I think you are glossing over the "Complied with the enabling law" bit. But if you want to think the president can just randomly add taxes where he wants you keep doing that. However once you consider that in practice they don't impose marketing taxes on industries that don't wish to have them. Heck the salmon fisheries in Alaska pay extra (read: more than is required) becuase marketing sells fish even bad ones as any Republican presidential nominee will tell you.

I don't give a flying if the industry wants it.

Hey frazmataz you should save up all these little gems you post roll them into a ball and when you have something worth saying THEN post. Random GET OFF MY LAWN comments don't really make your point for you. I'm thinking if you posted them all at once I might be able to find something in them to make a discussion out of.

As for your latest bleep filled gem. Ill simply say marketing tax had been around for a long time. They've been doing it for a long time now. Obama didn't invent it. Many industries self impose their own marketing tax anyway. Especially if the feds won't do one, and sometimes in addition to the federal one. It is a standard that has been around for a while... a long while. This wont change no matter how bad you want to take your country back.

INdustries can't impose their own tax. thats something called price fixing.
As to my stiyle of posting, hey when you're as old as I am you can post how you damn well please.

Wow then geesh that job I had in the department of revenue in Alaska must have just been a dream. I could have sworn I helped design a tax form for the salmon fishing industry to impose a Salmon Marketing Tax (SMT 04-568 as we called it. Of course they might have changed the name) whose funds were to be used only for the marketing and promotion of Alaskan salmon as decided by the Alaskan salmon industry. But now you're saying I can't have done that. Ill call Alaska's Republican government and let them know they're guilty of price fixing.

As to your style. I didn't really mean to comment on your style. Just that I'd rather you make an argument than a simple statement.

Ouze wrote:Yeah yeah, we get it, Obama is truly history's greatest monster. Stupid legislation passed under his watch, his fault. Stupid legislation turned out not to have passed under his watch, he's "ducking responsibility" and "pinning it on Bush".

You appear to not have understood my post. However, given the vitriol and insults in your post, I'm going to just ignore the rest of it.

When you're willing to blame Obama for any of his major feth ups while in office, instead of simply blaming everything bad that happens on Bush, give me a call.

Dakkadan wrote:I think you are glossing over the "Complied with the enabling law" bit.

Not really, the enabling law governs what the executive can regulate and how the rules are created. But it's really quite broad.

Dakkadan wrote:But if you want to think the president can just randomly add taxes where he wants you keep doing that.

In fact, that's not what I said. Feel free to go back and read my post if you're unclear on this point.

Dakkadan wrote:However once you consider that in practice they don't impose marketing taxes on industries that don't wish to have them. Heck the salmon fisheries in Alaska pay extra (read: more than is required) becuase marketing sells fish even bad ones as any Republican presidential nominee will tell you.

Please read the link I posted on the first page of this thread. The industry had actually tried to have a self-financed (and self-regulated) marketing group. However, the efforts would tend to fall apart after a few years. If you read up on this issue, it's apparent why this happened: some growers supported the tax and others did not.

Therefore, the purpose of this (and every other) tax is to force others to pay what they will not pay willingly.

So please stop saying that this is imposed on an industry that wants to pay the tax.

Dakkadan wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Dakkadan wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Dakkadan wrote:

biccat wrote:

Dakkadan wrote:the president doesn't have the power to impose any tax on his own.

The tax is promulgated as a rule, not as a law. The enabling law was passed by Congress and the authority to enact rules under the law was given to the Executive Branch, of which the President is the head.

If the President wanted to impose a tax, he could do so without (additional) approval from Congress, so long as he complied with the enabling law.

This is the basis of all administrative law.

I think you are glossing over the "Complied with the enabling law" bit. But if you want to think the president can just randomly add taxes where he wants you keep doing that. However once you consider that in practice they don't impose marketing taxes on industries that don't wish to have them. Heck the salmon fisheries in Alaska pay extra (read: more than is required) becuase marketing sells fish even bad ones as any Republican presidential nominee will tell you.

I don't give a flying if the industry wants it.

Hey frazmataz you should save up all these little gems you post roll them into a ball and when you have something worth saying THEN post. Random GET OFF MY LAWN comments don't really make your point for you. I'm thinking if you posted them all at once I might be able to find something in them to make a discussion out of.

As for your latest bleep filled gem. Ill simply say marketing tax had been around for a long time. They've been doing it for a long time now. Obama didn't invent it. Many industries self impose their own marketing tax anyway. Especially if the feds won't do one, and sometimes in addition to the federal one. It is a standard that has been around for a while... a long while. This wont change no matter how bad you want to take your country back.

INdustries can't impose their own tax. thats something called price fixing.
As to my stiyle of posting, hey when you're as old as I am you can post how you damn well please.

Wow then geesh that job I had in the department of revenue in Alaska must have just been a dream. I could have sworn I helped design a tax form for the salmon fishing industry to impose a Salmon Marketing Tax (SMT 04-568 as we called it. Of course they might have changed the name) whose funds were to be used only for the marketing and promotion of Alaskan salmon as decided by the Alaskan salmon industry. But now you're saying I can't have done that. Ill call Alaska's Republican government and let them know they're guilty of price fixing.

As to your style. I didn't really mean to comment on your style. Just that I'd rather you make an argument than a simple statement.

If you, as part of the Alaska government were designing the form, then it was a government tax. Else you wouldn't have ben involved.

There is no such thing as a "private" tax. There are assessments that members can make upon each othr as part of different organizations they are members of. They do not, however, have the force of the government behind them.

AustonT wrote:15c tax on trees, pah I heard Obama stole candy from a mother in an abortion clinic.

Well its not like he could steal the candy from the baby.


By the way, you aren't a mom if you don't have kids.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nectarprime wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
Bush left a pretty good wake. He's like a really loud and violent speed boat.

No it's all Obama's fault!!!!! Everything is!

I knew it, I knew that's why Aizona Tea is going out of business! Who will sell me 99 cent cans of tea or lemonae/tea now?

biccat wrote:

Ouze wrote:Yeah yeah, we get it, Obama is truly history's greatest monster. Stupid legislation passed under his watch, his fault. Stupid legislation turned out not to have passed under his watch, he's "ducking responsibility" and "pinning it on Bush".

You appear to not have understood my post. However, given the vitriol and insults in your post, I'm going to just ignore the rest of it.

When you're willing to blame Obama for any of his major feth ups while in office, instead of simply blaming everything bad that happens on Bush, give me a call.

I've blamed him for many of the stupid things he's done, and have several times said he doesn't deserve to get re-elected. Credit where credit's due, and fault where fault belongs. He deserves to be called out on the poor things he's done, just as you deserve to be called iout on what you did: you claimed Bush deserved credit, I posted a video showing 5 months after Osama killed 3,000 Americans Bush declaring he doesn't really think about Osama much, and you yelled "hey look, that dog has a fluffy tail" and ran away.

Frazzled wrote:

Dakkadan wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Dakkadan wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Dakkadan wrote:

biccat wrote:

Dakkadan wrote:the president doesn't have the power to impose any tax on his own.

The tax is promulgated as a rule, not as a law. The enabling law was passed by Congress and the authority to enact rules under the law was given to the Executive Branch, of which the President is the head.

If the President wanted to impose a tax, he could do so without (additional) approval from Congress, so long as he complied with the enabling law.

This is the basis of all administrative law.

I think you are glossing over the "Complied with the enabling law" bit. But if you want to think the president can just randomly add taxes where he wants you keep doing that. However once you consider that in practice they don't impose marketing taxes on industries that don't wish to have them. Heck the salmon fisheries in Alaska pay extra (read: more than is required) becuase marketing sells fish even bad ones as any Republican presidential nominee will tell you.

I don't give a flying if the industry wants it.

Hey frazmataz you should save up all these little gems you post roll them into a ball and when you have something worth saying THEN post. Random GET OFF MY LAWN comments don't really make your point for you. I'm thinking if you posted them all at once I might be able to find something in them to make a discussion out of.

As for your latest bleep filled gem. Ill simply say marketing tax had been around for a long time. They've been doing it for a long time now. Obama didn't invent it. Many industries self impose their own marketing tax anyway. Especially if the feds won't do one, and sometimes in addition to the federal one. It is a standard that has been around for a while... a long while. This wont change no matter how bad you want to take your country back.

INdustries can't impose their own tax. thats something called price fixing.
As to my stiyle of posting, hey when you're as old as I am you can post how you damn well please.

Wow then geesh that job I had in the department of revenue in Alaska must have just been a dream. I could have sworn I helped design a tax form for the salmon fishing industry to impose a Salmon Marketing Tax (SMT 04-568 as we called it. Of course they might have changed the name) whose funds were to be used only for the marketing and promotion of Alaskan salmon as decided by the Alaskan salmon industry. But now you're saying I can't have done that. Ill call Alaska's Republican government and let them know they're guilty of price fixing.

As to your style. I didn't really mean to comment on your style. Just that I'd rather you make an argument than a simple statement.

If you, as part of the Alaska government were designing the form, then it was a government tax. Else you wouldn't have ben involved.

There is no such thing as a "private" tax. There are assessments that members can make upon each othr as part of different organizations they are members of. They do not, however, have the force of the government behind them.

We colllected the salmon market TAX on BEHALF of the salmon fishing industry. In addition to assessments. Its all very complicated which is why I often take statements by people trying to tell me what the "law" is with a grain of salt. Even lawyers without the actual statutes in front of them are lost.

@bicatI'm not sure you're aware or not but that is what all taxes are. If we stopped all taxes based on the fact that some don't wont to pay we'd have no taxes. The point wasn't that every person in this industry wants the tax. But rather often industries want this tax because it increases sales directly instead of going to fix roads or something.

Also my point about Obama then seems to have had nothing to do with your original reply to it.

Also sorry for this reply style I'm typing this on my phone while in a car.

Dakkadan wrote:@bicat I'm not sure you're aware or not but that is what all taxes are. I we stopped all taxes based on that fact that some don't wont to pay we'd have no taxes. The point wasn't that every person in this industry wants the tax. But rather often industries want this tax because it increases sales directly instead of going to fix roads or something.

Yes, I know that's what taxes are. Taxes are means of transferring assets by force or threat of force to a governmental agency. Government involvement is necessary because people won't pay voluntarily.

You could say that the majority of the industry wants the tax, which would be closer to the truth (although is not true by necessity). Some growers want a Christmas Tree Advertising Board (or whatever the official name is), others do not. Those who want the Board should pay for it, not those who do not want it.

Dakkadan wrote:Also my point about Obama then seems to have had nothing to do with your original reply to it.

My response to you was based on this comment: "the president doesn't have the power to impose any tax on his own."

Technically, he does, because that power was ceded to him by Congress.

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

At first I was all "meh."

to support a new Federal program to improve the image and marketing of Christmas trees.

...but then I was all "lolwut!?"