Kosher tax causes losses -- who pays?
-
http://www.nationalvanguard.org
National Vanguard Flyers Effective: Kosher Rakeoff Questioned
Letters; Posted on: 2005-10-30
[ Printer friendly / Instant flyer ]
Kosher tax causes losses -- who pays?
by Richard Drake
THE OTHER DAY I found a bag enclosing a flyer from National Vanguard
in my driveway regarding the Kosher Tax. Thank you; very informative
and thought-provoking!
http://www.natallwest.com/Leaflets/Kosher_tax_2pgs_CO.pdf
I thought I'd share a direct observation I've had on this issue.
Recently there was a recall on a certain product I deal with (I work
in the food industry), specifically "I Can't Believe It's Not Butter -
Light" as described at the Orthodox Union Kosher Web site. One store I
deal with was "required" to pull and destroy 24 units of this product
because it apparently had an "unauthorized" OU symbol.
http://oukosher.org/index.php/kosher/displayalerts
The retail price of this product is $2.39, so $57.36 worth of perfectly
good merchandise was thrown away at this store. This grocery chain has
approximately 120 stores. I'd speculate that just this one chain threw
away in excess of $5,000 worth of this product. Multiply this by the
countless stores from countless chains nationwide, and the cost of
Kosher extortion in this one incident alone is staggering. Somebody
is absorbing that cost, and ultimately it is the American consumer.
At any rate, your flyer worked. I will now be paying more attention to
this issue as well as visiting nationalvanguard.org for news. It's a
very good Web site.
Multimillion-Dollar Kosher Certification Charges: Hoax or Truth?
(2004-05-08 12:38:02)
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=2828
Patrick Keenan
news:4367a3d5...@news.isomedia.com...
>
> http://www.nationalvanguard.org
>
> National Vanguard Flyers Effective: Kosher Rakeoff Questioned
> Letters; Posted on: 2005-10-30
> [ Printer friendly / Instant flyer ]
>
>
> Kosher tax causes losses -- who pays?
>
> by Richard Drake
>
>
>
> THE OTHER DAY I found a bag enclosing a flyer from National Vanguard
> in my driveway regarding the Kosher Tax. Thank you; very informative
> and thought-provoking!
"Thought-provking indeed... especially if you fall for the bogus "tax"
line.
Only governments can impose taxes. What government office requires Kosher
certifications?
None. Kosher certification is used by businesses who decide to include
market segments. They don't have to - this is a business decision.
Charges stemming from business decisions are not taxes.
Perhaps basic civics classes would be helpful for your National Vanguard
sources.
Why is it that you aren't complaining about the costs stemming from business
support for opera or ballet - or is it that those are generally White,
Christian activities and hence are OK?
Why are you not complaining about the purchase of art for corporate offices?
How, exactly, does art on walls contribute to worker productivity and lower
costs, or higher profits?
Or is it OK to spend millions on something entirely unrelated to the
products if the artists are white?
Or do you feel that costs to include market segments are taxes, but costs
entirely unrelated to the business are not taxes? If so, why?
> http://www.natallwest.com/Leaflets/Kosher_tax_2pgs_CO.pdf
>
> I thought I'd share a direct observation I've had on this issue.
> Recently there was a recall on a certain product I deal with (I work
> in the food industry), specifically "I Can't Believe It's Not Butter -
> Light" as described at the Orthodox Union Kosher Web site. One store I
> deal with was "required" to pull and destroy 24 units of this product
> because it apparently had an "unauthorized" OU symbol.
The manufacturer used the symbol fraudulently, you mean?
> http://oukosher.org/index.php/kosher/displayalerts
>
> The retail price of this product is $2.39, so $57.36 worth of perfectly
> good merchandise was thrown away at this store.
This is an interesting use of the term "perfectly good merchandise".
The manufacturer in question apparently decided to use a quality symbol it
wasn't entitled to. What was the problem with the product itself, that
they felt they couldn't get approval for it?
Is this like the false use of CSA and UL symbols on electrical products that
can't pass standards and catch fire, putting consumers at risk?
Is this something that fills you with confidence about the manufacturer's
processes?
Personally, this story tells me that the OU is far more on the ball than
the manufacturer.
Were you trying to say that you have something against consumers being
accurately informed as to what they are buying?
-pk
<snippage>
-
>> by Richard Drake
>>
>> THE OTHER DAY I found a bag enclosing a flyer from National Vanguard
>> in my driveway regarding the Kosher Tax. Thank you; very informative
>> and thought-provoking!
"Patrick Keenan" <te...@dev.null> wrote:
> "Thought-provking indeed... especially if you fall for the bogus "tax"
> line.
>
> Only governments can impose taxes. What government office requires
> Kosher certifications?
>
> None. Kosher certification is used by businesses who decide to include
> market segments. They don't have to - this is a business decision.
>
> Charges stemming from business decisions are not taxes.
>
> Perhaps basic civics classes would be helpful for your National Vanguard
> sources.
I believe it is critical to clarify what National Vanguard appears
to say before subjecting it to criticism by wrongheaded interpretation.
The phrase "kosher tax" is by literary license: it references the ZOG
(Zionist Occupied Government) imposing other taxes as well in direct
support of Israel. From a consumer's perspective, if only the "kosher"
item is available on the shelf then the consumer is impelled to make a
contribution (however small) which could conceivably violate religious
precepts. If the "kosher" item is placed on temporary below market
"sale" then sale value still includes a small increment to the rabbis.
Certain Muslim communities are also following a practice similar to
the "kosher" increment, to raise funds and to encourage the carrying
of products from the Muslim supply-chain. Conceivably this practice
could be extended to any religion if there are sufficient numbers of
believers in a community to compel stores to carry approved brands.
What you attempt to "write off" as a mere "business decision," could,
in certain contexts make or break that business. So it's not arbitrary.
> Why is it that you aren't complaining about the costs stemming from
> business support for opera or ballet - or is it that those are generally
> White, Christian activities and hence are OK?
It's interesting that you characterize highbrow culture as White,
Christian activities. In the music world I found a considerable number
of Jewish participants. Even Jews excuse Wagner's anti-semitism
owing to sheer musical genius of Wagner's copious compositions.
The "business support for opera or ballet" does not occur at a level
of consumerism. Consumers might not have a choice when presented
with kosher certificates, and the existence of kosher certificates in a
community might serve instead to drive out other competing brands.
Thus, when Jews infest a community their effect is to discourage
diversity in the marketplace through "kosher food correctness."
Would you also suggest that "business support for opera or ballet"
should be curtailed? Why do you suppose that you would opt for a
strawman argument instead of focusing your attention upon this issue?
> Why are you not complaining about the purchase of art for corporate
> offices? How, exactly, does art on walls contribute to worker productivity
> and lower costs, or higher profits?
Quite likely some of that "art for corporate offices" was purchased
from Jewish artists. Corporations have numerous incentives for certain
tax write-offs, and purchase of art for -donation- to a community office
could well qualify. No particular exclusion is being suggested when
sponsoring art, unlike the effect of kosher certificates.
> Or is it OK to spend millions on something entirely unrelated to the
> products if the artists are white?
If you think there is a "PR value" in funding White Artists then
your argument might hold, however I suspect that the "PR value"
is instead being directed across the board, or even at minorities.
> Or do you feel that costs to include market segments are taxes, but
> costs entirely unrelated to the business are not taxes? If so, why?
The article identified mislabled product which had to be destroyed,
which is another form of "tax" levied upon the consumer. Furthermore
one must consider the effect of displacing non-kosher food items.
>> http://www.natallwest.com/Leaflets/Kosher_tax_2pgs_CO.pdf
>>
>> I thought I'd share a direct observation I've had on this issue.
>> Recently there was a recall on a certain product I deal with (I work
>> in the food industry), specifically "I Can't Believe It's Not Butter -
>> Light" as described at the Orthodox Union Kosher Web site. One store I
>> deal with was "required" to pull and destroy 24 units of this product
>> because it apparently had an "unauthorized" OU symbol.
> The manufacturer used the symbol fraudulently, you mean?
Numerous possibilities. The symbols were made obsolete
for purposes of change in the control over kosher certification, or
symbols could have been designated for specific region of sale.
>> http://oukosher.org/index.php/kosher/displayalerts
>>
>> The retail price of this product is $2.39, so $57.36 worth of perfectly
>> good merchandise was thrown away at this store.
> This is an interesting use of the term "perfectly good merchandise".
Another atrocity, one would think, when in context to the nation's
(gentile) poor who could stand to benefit by redistributed merchandise.
> The manufacturer in question apparently decided to use a quality
> symbol it wasn't entitled to. What was the problem with the product
> itself, that they felt they couldn't get approval for it?
Well, the rabbi is not obligated to approve any particular product.
That's what is meant by the aspect of "kosher certification" and control.
> Is this like the false use of CSA and UL symbols on electrical products
> that can't pass standards and catch fire, putting consumers at risk?
Yes, that might be an analogy though "kosher certfication" does
not need to operate according to standards of government fairness.
> Is this something that fills you with confidence about the
> manufacturer's processes?
False use of CSA or UL symbols does not generally occur, and
if it should occur those products would not remain on the market.
Mislabeled product would be pulled off the shelves.
> Personally, this story tells me that the OU is far more on the ball than
> the manufacturer.
That's what they want you to think. Successful at their brainwashing.
> Were you trying to say that you have something against consumers
> being accurately informed as to what they are buying?
All that "kosher certification" does is tell consumers that the product
was blessed by a rabbi. It says nothing about safety or risk. It tells
consumers that the manufacturing process of that food or product
involved other Jewish Businesses. Called consumer selectivity so
that government is disinvolved in preferential racial discrimination.
- regards
- jb
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimillion-Dollar Kosher Certification Charges: Hoax or Truth?
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=2828
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oom Papa Maomao
wrote:
>
>Only governments can impose taxes.
Not true. Anyone can impose taxes. The hard part's COLLECTING.
Post your address, and I'll send over a Tax Collector.
Patrick Keenan
>
<Snippage>
>
> All that "kosher certification" does is tell consumers that the
> product
> was blessed by a rabbi.
In fact, that is not all that Kosher certification does.
Thanks for illustrating your ignorance of what you're complaining about.
-pk
<snippage>
Patrick Keenan
news:d7mfm1hhg44r4h0c2...@4ax.com...
You can try that, but it won't make it a tax.
-pk
-
>> All that "kosher certification" does is tell consumers that the
>> product was blessed by a rabbi.
"Patrick Keenan" <te...@dev.null> wrote:
> In fact, that is not all that Kosher certification does.
> Thanks for illustrating your ignorance of what you're complaining about.
Since this is going to be like a mathematics proof, I reply by
stating that you have not informed us of anything else that "kosher
certification" does. Perhaps you do not understand the technical
meanings of "blessed" and "rabbi."
- regards
- jb
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Idiotic attempt to fake "hate crime" revealed in hearing testimony.
http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051029/NEWS/510290308/1006
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oom Papa Maomao
wrote:
>"Oom Papa Maomao" <oompap...@pookmail.com> wrote in message
>news:d7mfm1hhg44r4h0c2...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 13:57:48 -0500, "Patrick Keenan" <te...@dev.null>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Only governments can impose taxes.
>>
>> Not true. Anyone can impose taxes. The hard part's COLLECTING.
>>
>> Post your address, and I'll send over a Tax Collector.
>
>You can try that,
Oh, we'll do more than TRY. I believe you will find that our Tax
Collector will - in the best tradition of Tax Collectors for thousands
of years - make you an offer you won't be able to refuse.
>but it won't make it a tax.
Why not? Define "tax".
Patrick Keenan
That will only make it extortion - not a tax.
>>but it won't make it a tax.
>
> Why not?
Because your imaginary collector will not be a representative of a
government or any group that I am a member of, and will not be collecting
for either the public good or to defray costs of whatever organization I am
a member of.
> Define "tax".
See below. You'll note that all of these definitions specify that taxes
are paid to government or state for public purposes, or to organizations
that have membership costs.
So, your little extortion proposal won't qualify as a tax.
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
charge against a citizen's person or property or activity for the support of
government
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax
A tax is an involuntary fee paid by individuals or businesses to a state, or
to functional equivalents of a state..
www.house.gov/rules/glossary_fbp.htm
A payment imposed upon persons or groups for governmental support.
www.nmlites.org/standards/socialstudies/glossary.html
Compulsory payment of a percentage of income, property value, etc., for the
support of a government
www.milliplex.com/omnivalue/help/omnivalue_1.html
A percentage of the income that is paid to the state.
www.sanderco.com/Glossary%20Pages/T.htm
Enforced charge exacted of persons, corporations and organizations by the
government to be used to support government services and programs.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
1 a : a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property
for public purposes
This one definition does include a non-governmental section, but does
require people to be members of an organization. Since I'm not a member of
any organization that you are, your extortion scheme doesn't qualify; and
since purchasers of Kosher goods are generally not members of any specific
organization for which any Kosher costs (and in fact, the burden is
sometimes negative) might be levied, any detectable costs from Kosher
certification are also not taxes.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=tax
A contribution for the support of a government required of persons, groups,
or businesses within the domain of that government.
I might point out, since it may not be clear, that Kosher certification can
actually reduce product costs since it enlarges the potential customer base
at minor expense. Making an entire product run certified, rather than
duplicating facilities for purposes of a certified run, can in fact reduce
the overall product cost.
Hope this helps.
-pk
Oom Papa Maomao
wrote:
>"Oom Papa Maomao" <oompap...@pookmail.com> wrote in message
>news:bhpfm1144cas9q3j1...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 16:51:54 -0500, "Patrick Keenan" <te...@dev.null>
>> wrote:
>>>"Oom Papa Maomao" <oompap...@pookmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:d7mfm1hhg44r4h0c2...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 13:57:48 -0500, "Patrick Keenan" <te...@dev.null>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Only governments can impose taxes.
>>>>
>>>> Not true. Anyone can impose taxes. The hard part's COLLECTING.
>>>>
>>>> Post your address, and I'll send over a Tax Collector.
>>>
>>>You can try that,
>>
>> Oh, we'll do more than TRY. I believe you will find that our Tax
>> Collector will - in the best tradition of Tax Collectors for thousands
>> of years - make you an offer you won't be able to refuse.
>
>That will only make it extortion - not a tax.
Well, duhhhh... OF COURSE it's extortion - you wouldn't PAY otherwise!
But it's still a tax.
>
>>>but it won't make it a tax.
>>
>> Why not?
>
>Because your imaginary collector
Oh, you don't want to call Herman "imaginary", not to his face,
anyway. Herman's anything BUT imaginary. The real problem is that he's
not got a great vocabulary, and if he thinks you're dissing him,
you're going to be in a whole pile o' trubble, Bubba.
> will not be a representative of a
>government or any group that I am a member of,
How do you know he won't? I'll bet he will be. What government are you
a member of? What groups are you a member of? How did you get to be a
"member"? Do you know what a "member" is? Herman's got a "member" for
you.
> and will not be collecting
>for either the public good or to defray costs of whatever organization I am
>a member of.
Hahahahahahahahaaaaahahahaha!!!
OF COURSE we will. We solemnly promise.
And that's all that counts with you, right? Right? As long as the tax
money we collect from you is "for the public good" or "to defray costs
of whatever organization" then everything's okay, gotcha.
Sounds good to me, and we are deliriously happy to be able to tell you
that we ARE "members" of certain governments and whatever
organizations, and we ARE going to use the money for the public
good... like, maybe we'll kill a few hundred thousand people, that's
good, as long as it's the right people, innit?
So much for your objections.
Now, what's your address? Hurry up, Herman's getting impatient. He
asked me why I was laughing so hard, and I read your silly little
message to him. He was going to look up "imaginary" in my OED, but he
couldn't figure out how to spell "ih", so I told him it meant "muhfuh
what got a Mama so fat the gummint hadda giver ass its own zip code".
He's still not too sure whether that'sgood or bad, because his Mama
don't got no clothes what got no zipper, and almost anything the
government gives you is good, long as it don't got no numbers in it,
like four to seven.