The concrete tax: Wrong mix
When private businesses conspire with the government to fund the former's promotion, customers inevitably pay the freight. It happened with the government-enforced “assessment” on Christmas trees to pay for research and marketing. And it's happening again with a push to seal a similar deal for concrete masonry products.
Instead of a voluntary program within the masonry industry, key players are turning to the feds to set up a compulsory program through the Concrete Masonry Products Research, Education and Promotion Act. If enacted, the program would be managed by the Commerce Department and the Concrete Masonry Products Board, which would be handpicked by the secretary of Commerce.
Don't want to ante up? Too bad.
Naturally, proponents call it an “assessment” or a “fee.” No, what's proposed is a tax that would be compelled and enforced by the government. And as with most taxes, once passed, they tend to increase.
At $0.01 or $0.05 per unit (for example, concrete blocks), the tax is being sold as harmless. But it would yield on average $14 million annually, according to the Congressional Budget Office. And, as is typical, that sum would come out of consumers' pockets.
What's proposed is a distortion of the free market for the benefit of larger businesses and special interests. But just like concrete, if the mix isn't right, what's cast will prematurely deteriorate and fall apart.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Sunday pops
- Expanding Medicaid: Gov.-elect Wolf embraces a false premise
- The Box
- The regulatory state: EPA picks a fight
- Saturday essay: A manger’s light
- Union ‘fairness’: The dues racket
- Picking winners & losers: Stop the idiocy
- The Kathleen Kane chronicles: New and serious questions are being raised about the Pa. attorney general
- The Thursday wrap
- U.N. Watch: Resist the temptation
- Ford City’s solution: Good side to cop cuts