Obama: X-mas Tree Tax - Page 3

Iacchus · #51 11-09-2011, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iacchus

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iacchus

And my point was that if Christmas trees were treated as if they were a religious relic, does the government have a right to levy tax on it? So, apparently you weren't willing to address that question either.

They aren't treated as a "religious relic" at all, they are just products.

Are you sure? I think to most folks (at least here in the States) it wouldn't be Christmas without it.

A little persuasive authority from the ol' Supreme Court:

The Christmas tree, unlike the menorah, is not itself a religious symbol. Although Christmas trees once carried religious connotations, today they typify the secular celebration of Christmas. See American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois v. St. Charles, 794 F.2d 265, 271 (CA7), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 961 (1986); L. Tribe, American Constitutional Law 1295 (2d ed.1988) (Tribe). Numerous Americans place Christmas trees in their homes without subscribing to Christian religious beliefs, and when the city's tree stands alone in front of the City-County Building, it is not considered an endorsement of Christian faith. Indeed, a 40-foot Christmas tree was one of the objects that validated the creche in Lynch. The widely accepted view of the Christmas tree as the preeminent secular symbol of the Christmas holiday season serves to emphasize the secular component of the message communicated by other elements of an accompanying holiday display, including the Chanukah menorah.
-County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U. S. 573, 616-617 (Blackmun, J., concurring) (1989)

So, to the "secular" crowd, Christmas is not a religious holiday? If so, then yeah, maybe they should just tax the secular folks. Or, at least forbid anyone else from purchasing them. Or, like I already said, start calling them Santa Claus trees and change the whole thing to a bank holiday.

Adam · #52 11-09-2011, 08:56 PM

I think Sock said it first, but I am never not amused by the 1950's Republican lurking just beneath the surface of the mystical woo guru.

LadyShea · #53 11-09-2011, 08:57 PM

Quote:

If so, then yeah, maybe they should just tax the secular folks.

They aren't "taxing" consumers at all Iacchus.

They are charging fresh cut tree producers and importers a .15/tree fee to fund research and promotion of the industry by the industry.

Quote:

So, to the "secular" crowd, Christmas is not a religious holiday?

I celebrate Christmas as a multi-cultural and family tradition, not a religiously meaningful holiday in my personal wordlview (though I recognize the significance to others and respect their celebrations). How did you think most secular people did it?

Why is secular in quotes? Do you not believe secular people exist?

ChuckF · #54 11-09-2011, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iacchus

So, to the "secular" crowd, Christmas is not a religious holiday? If so, then yeah, maybe they should just tax the secular folks. Or, at least forbid anyone else from purchasing them.

The 13th Amendment already forbids anyone else from purchasing secular folks. U.S. Const. Amend. XIII.

But seriously though:

If by "secular" crowd, you mean "Justice Blackmun and the authority he cites" then "yes."
You think the state should impose a tax on individuals for not adhering to a particular religion. ("If so, then yeah, maybe they should just tax the secular folks.")
You think the state should impose a religious test to prevent non-religious individuals from purchasing Christmas trees. ("Or, at least forbid anyone else [other than "secular folks"] from purchasing them [Christmas trees - not "secular folks"])."
And you are worried that this voluntary, industry-wide assessment, which is like many, other similar programs started and sustained by producers of other agricultural commodities, might be unconstitutional.

Magical.

Iacchus · #55 11-09-2011, 09:03 PM

The fact that it is taxed at all, still implies the government is involved. And if the growers and/or retailers are taxed, who do you think they're going to pass that tax onto?

lisarea · #56 11-09-2011, 09:07 PM

You Obamapologists really make me sick sometimes.

thanksobama.jpg

ChuckF · #57 11-09-2011, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iacchus

The fact that it is taxed at all, still implies the government is involved. And if the growers and/or retailers are taxed, who do you think they're going to pass that tax onto?

The government is involved because the growers and importers asked the government to collect the assessment just like they do for other similar industry groups. Let me repeat that: the growers and importers asked for this assessment. They pay it voluntarily. The proceeds go to the goddamn industry-run group to promote the goddamn industry and there's a regular goddamn referendum among growers and importers to see if they want to continue paying the tax. If you're worried about the cost of the assessment being passed on, then take it up with the goddamn growers and importers.

And no, there is no first amendment challenge here.

LadyShea · #58 11-09-2011, 09:11 PM

Well if fresh cut Christmas tree purchasers are offended by possibly paying 15 cents in passed on costs to promote fresh cut trees (which, presumably, they like and enjoy and want to purchase) then they are free to not buy one. Or to buy one from a small producer that is exempt. Or to grow their own trees. Or to buy an artificial tree that won't have that passed on dime + nickel.

Iacchus · #59 11-09-2011, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iacchus

The fact that it is taxed at all, still implies the government is involved. And if the growers and/or retailers are taxed, who do you think they're going to pass that tax onto?

The government is involved because the growers and importers asked the government to collect the assessment just like they do for other similar industry groups. Let me repeat that: the growers and importers asked for this assessment. They pay it voluntarily. The proceeds go to the goddamn industry-run group to promote the goddamn industry and there's a regular goddamn referendum among growers and importers to see if they want to continue paying the tax. If you're worried about the cost of the assessment being passed on, then take it up with the goddamn growers and importers.

And no, there is no first amendment challenge here.

Okay, fair enough. I still think Christmas should be treated either as a religious holiday or it shouldn't.

And hey, if you folks want to take out the word "Christmas," and start calling it something else, and charge taxes on all things related, I don't care. Just don't try to pass it off as something that it isn't. :wink:

Demimonde · #60 11-09-2011, 09:33 PM

Us folks?

We don't control the federal holidays.

ChuckF · #61 11-09-2011, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iacchus

Okay, fair enough. I still think Christmas should be treated either as a religious holiday or it shouldn't.

How is this even relevant at all? Fill the rest of us in on the conversation(s) going on in your head.

Quote:

Hey, if you folks want to take out the word "Christmas," and start calling it something else, and charge taxes on all things related, I don't care.

Who wants to take out the word "Christmas" and start calling it something else, and charge taxes on all things related? Who has said that they want to do that? You said "you folks." To whom are you referring? Be specific.

Quote:

Just don't try to pass it off as something that it isn't. :wink:

Who is trying to pass what off as something that it isn't? Be specific.

LadyShea · #62 11-09-2011, 09:35 PM

Why do you care if some people treat it as a religious holiday and others do not? And what does that have to do with taxing "all the related things" or whatever? Do you not think that any number of human traditions can be continued or observed, even if the original roots have been forgotten or replaced?

Halloween is still a religious holiday to some people (Samhain), and used to be a religious holiday for Christians (All Hallow's Eve). Should we treat it as a religious holiday or not? Should we not tax candy because it is a religious relic?

Sock Puppet · #63 11-09-2011, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Fill the rest of us in on the conversation(s) going on in your head.

Or not. I think that would be fine too.

ChuckF · #64 11-09-2011, 09:38 PM

Touché, Sack. Touché.

LadyShea · #65 11-09-2011, 09:39 PM

I need a "tax all the things" cartoon please.

LadyShea · #66 11-09-2011, 09:44 PM

In case you missed it Jerome

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Commodity checkoff program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

In the United States, a commodity checkoff program collects funds though a checkoff mechanism, sometimes called checkoff dollars, from producers of a particular agricultural commodity and uses these funds to promote and do research on the commodity. The organizations must promote their commodity in a generic way, without reference to a particular producer. Checkoff programs attempt to improve the market position of the covered commodity by expanding markets, increasing demand, and developing new uses and markets.

The United States Department of Agriculture is responsible for overseeing the formation of checkoff organizations under the authority of Commodity, Promotion, Research and Information Act of 1996.

These organizations are responsible for familiar American advertising campaigns, including "Milk Does a Body Good," the Got Milk? milk moustache series, "Pork. The Other White Meat", "The Incredible, Edible Egg", and "Beef: It's What's for Dinner."

Do you have similar issues with these other well known campaigns, Jerome?

Iacchus · #67 11-09-2011, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iacchus

Yeah, I think the commercial aspect of Christmas really sucks! So, why not tax it all ... or, even call it something else?

Yes, this was the first thing I said.

By the way, I don't observe "Christmas." It's just another day of the year.

LadyShea · #68 11-09-2011, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iacchus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iacchus

Yeah, I think the commercial aspect of Christmas really sucks! So, why not tax it all ... or, even call it something else?

Yes, this was first thing I said.

Yes what? What question are you answering "yes" to?

Quote:

By the way, I don't observe "Christmas." It's just another day of the year.

And why do you need to relate this factoid?

Quote:

I think the commercial aspect of Christmas really sucks! So, why not tax it all ... or, even call it something else?

As far as I am aware, there are no Christmas related consumer products that are completely tax exempt based on religiosity or whatever.

LadyShea · #69 11-09-2011, 09:49 PM

dupe

godfry n. glad · #70 11-10-2011, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iacchus

And my point was that if Christmas trees were treated as if they were a religious relic, does the government have a right to levy tax on it? So, apparently you weren't willing to address that question either.

They aren't treated as a "religious relic" at all, they are just products.

And they are not 'levying a tax on it'.

Just because after the holiday, they are tossed into the street, the fireplace, or the trash can doesn't necessarily mean it's not a 'religious relic', does it?

Maybe they are just 'short term religious relics'? I mean, really...I don't think we can put Christmas trees in the same category as one of Jesus' seven foreskins.

Butcher a tree for baby Jesus this year!

Iacchus · #71 11-10-2011, 03:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iacchus

Yeah, I think the commercial aspect of Christmas really sucks! So, why not tax it all ... or, even call it something else?

As far as I am aware, there are no Christmas related consumer products that are completely tax exempt based on religiosity or whatever.

Which of course is what I mean by the commercial aspect. If there is anything religious at all about what the government taxes, it really should be questioned, if we are the least bit concerned about the separation of church and state. Just think of the massive amount of sales revenue generated each year at this time!

Or, if on the other hand the government wants to change it to something like "Santa Claus Day," and declare it a non-religious holiday, that would be fine too. That would be more honest at least.

Ari · #72 11-10-2011, 03:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iacchus

and charge taxes on all things related,

I think that's called Sales tax.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iacchus

No, I think they should start calling them Santa Claus trees

Or perhaps we can call them pine trees/evergreen coniferous trees, like we do the rest of the year. Those that aren't sold can be turned into paper, firewood, building materials. There are plenty of things that can be done with trees besides decorated and then thrown out.

LadyShea · #73 11-10-2011, 03:49 AM

Charging sales and use taxes on all products sold to the public is not promoting a specific religion, nor is it interfering in the free exercise of religion.

There is nothing to question, as it is not in any way a church state separation issue.

Iacchus · #74 11-10-2011, 03:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Halloween is still a religious holiday to some people (Samhain), and used to be a religious holiday for Christians (All Hallow's Eve). Should we treat it as a religious holiday or not? Should we not tax candy because it is a religious relic?

The way it is treated currently, no, it is not a religious holiday. So the government can tax all the candy it wants.

Ari · #75 11-10-2011, 04:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iacchus

The way it is treated currently, no, it is not a religious holiday. So the government can tax all the candy it wants.

Nice religious prejudice there.

I have friends who absolutely treat Samhain (and the solstices) as a religious holiday. They certainly have more religious items and rituals than an average Christmas party.