Wood tax slips through legislature

September 4, 2012

A new tax on lumber was passed by California lawmakers over the weekend with the full support of the timber industry. (Sacramento Bee)

The 1 percent increase proposal by Gov. Jerry Brown won approval by the barest of margins, 54-20, with only one Republican backing it. The bill includes provisions limiting wildfire liability for individuals and entities. Timber interests were comfortable with the proposal because it eliminates substantial regulatory fees the industry now shoulders.

The tax, applied to the consumer end of lumber sales within California, is expected to raise $30 million annually to pay for regulatory oversight, including the Department of Fish and Game’s timber harvest review program.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The article leaves out some information. A 1% tax increase is a tax increase period. I am certainly against “regulatory oversite” taxes in any form. But, the article doesn’t explain what “substantial regulatory fees” reduction means. I am generally a fan of Karen’s and sometimes Dan’s articles, but this one is a bit short on base information. Please explain what the industry likes as opposed to what the government likes about this “passed” “proposal”. I thought a proposal was a “proposal”, not something that was already “passed”. Get your facts straight CCN. Please.

Get your facts straight CCN

Please read the link that CCN provided, use your mouse and click on the highlighted text up there^ this is a Sac-Bee ‘news brief’

Karen and Dan had nothing to do with writing this article.

Thank You.

My apology. You are correct. I missed the link.

St. Reagan in 1967 said, “Here was I, the big conservative who talked of cutting the cost of government, cutting taxes, faced with the realization that there was no way out except to raise taxes.”


So, this tax is supposed to raise 30Mil, for pay for “regulatory oversight.” Does anybody out there in reader land know if this state has reached the point where there are more people employed doing “regulatory

oversight,” than are actually doing work?

As to your question, I don’t know the answer — which is sad because it should be a clear “no.”

However, as to this action, it sounds like it had industry support because it would limit regulatory fees now being charged to pay for the same thing. My guess is that those fees were fixed annual fees and becoming an unbearable burden in a bad economy for building materials. The fact that they did support this means of paying for industry oversight means that they don’t anticipate a return to days with high growth since fees based on production/sales could conceivably surpass the current regulatory fees if that happened.