President Obama just announced at a press conference that he has directed Treasury Secretary Jack Lew to demand the resignation of the Acting IRS Commissioner, Steven Miller. CNN then obtained Miller's resignation letter...
- The Tax Policy Blog
- Dept. of Agriculture to Levy Assessment, Defend Reputation of Chris...
Dept. of Agriculture to Levy Assessment, Defend Reputation of Christmas Trees
UPDATE: See this blog post for new developments.
The Chicago Tribune reports that the Department of Agriculture has announced plans to levy a 15 cent assessment on all real Christmas trees. The estimated $2 million in revenue will be used to fund a PR campaign intended to present "a favorable image of Christmas trees to the general public with the intent of improving the perception and competitive position of Christmas trees and stimulating sales of Christmas trees."
Officials at the Department of Agriculture argue the program is justified given "increased competition and changing consumer habits." By that I assume they mean less traditional products, namely fake trees, that some consumers apparently find more appealing and a better use of their money.
According to the Department's analysis the industry has tried three separate times to implement a real tree promotion program, but failed after the funding, based on voluntary contributions, dried up. That might be a free rider problem, or it might just be that some producers didn't think there was enough benefit to justify the cost. Either way, government intervention isn't obviously justified.
Is the new levy a fee or a tax? CATO argues that it is a tax, but I'm not so sure. If the revenue, having been collected from tree producers, is dedicated to paying for a service that only tree producers directly benefit from, there is a case for calling the levy a "fee." But that doesn't mean the fee is justified.
Will the levy increase Christmas tree prices? Maybe, maybe not. That depends in part on whether tree sellers can easily pass on the cost without losing sales.
Those who prefer to buy "holiday trees," "solstice-celebration perennials," or any other non-"Christmas" winter plant decoration may wonder if their preferred plant is included. The definition given in the regulation is that a "Christmas tree" is "any tree of the coniferous species, that is severed or cut from its roots and marketed as a Christmas tree for holiday use." This definition is actually unclear to me. As currently written it sounds like it would apply only if the trees are marketed as "Christmas trees." Ultimately, it will probably depend on how officials interpret the regulation.
Clearly, those families with Festivus poles don't need to worry.
Buy this blogger a cup of coffee!
Join the Tax Foundation's fight for sound tax policy Go
About the Tax Policy Blog
The Tax Policy Blog is the official weblog of the Tax Foundation, a non-partisan, non-profit research organization that has monitored tax policy at the federal, state and local levels since 1937. Our economists welcome your feedback. If you would like to send an e-mail to the author of a blog post, please click on that person's name to locate his or her e-mail address or visit our staff page here.