Chesbro's Timber Bill
The Times- Standard reports Wes Chesbro was one of the main proponents of the recently passed 1% tax on lumber products.
If I'm reading the story right, most of the money raised will be used for "regulatory oversight". The lumber producers were already paying these fees. The article states, "California producers currently pay six to eight times more regulatory fees than out-of-state producers.".
So, instead of lumber producers paying the regulatory fees, the consumers are now being charged for them via the 1% tax? Now that's legislation that will build the economy and get back California's competitive edge. NOT!
No talk of getting rid of any part of the regulatory oversight that ends up costing California producers much more than the other states. We just charge the consumer instead of the company. The government side of the equation stays the same, or even grows.
So typically Californian, and typically Chesbro.
posted by Fred Mangels @ 9:55 AM
5 comments
5 Comments:
The bogus assumption on your part is that the tax is about rebuilding the economy. Nobody, except you, have made that suggestion.
It makes sense to shift a portion of the burden of timber production to the consumers who are consuming the timber.
It's a bogus assumption by you that nobody in the state cares about rebuilding the economy. If the state legislature should be doing anything, it should be making it easier for companies to do business, not shifting money around.
Consumers already pay for the cost of timber production and regulation when they buy lumber. That's part of the lumber company's overhead. Where do you think the lumber companies get the money to pay the regulatory fees? It comes out of the cost you pay when you buy lumber.
Don't know if you're open to reading about a viewpoint opposite to the classic taxes = bad = "business-being-driven-from-the-state" without dismissing it as liberal mind tricks, but here is an alternate take on the whole California in the toilet meme:
http://www.policyshop.net/home/2012/8/31/california-v-taxes-proposition-13s-legacy.html#comments
The Times-Standard article you linked notes that:
Gary Rynearson, manager for forest policy at Green Diamond Resource Company, said it makes Green Diamond and other California timber producers more competitive with other Northwest states and Canada.
”We do hope it creates a more level playing field,” he said. “We supported this bill and appreciated the support of Chesbro.
So for Fred's anaylsis to be correct, that would mean that Green Diamond and other timber companies are wrong about the effect this law will have on their business. I doubt that's the case.
Also interesting to note that while timber producers supported this bil, EPIC opposed it:
http://www.wildcalifornia.org/blog/stop-ab-1492-timber-industry-giveaway-restricts-the-publics-rights-and-saddles-californians-with-an-unnecessary-tax/
So for Fred's anaylsis to be correct, that would mean that Green Diamond and other timber companies are wrong about the effect this law will have on their business..
Not at all. Ask yourself why this supposedly makes them "more" competitive:
They don't have to pay as much, if any, of those regulatory fees anymore. Those fees are taken by the government from consumers now. The lumber companies get to pocket the money they used to pay for the fees. Why wouldn't they support it?
And don't expect the lumber companies to refund 1% of the cost of their lumber to you. You simply pay the fees now. They don't.
Nothing's changed except who is directly paying the regulatory fees and the lumber folk get to keep the money they used to pay.
Sets a bad precedent, actually, since they could probably do the same thing with anything for sale in California now.
Post a Comment
<< Home