# [OT] Sci-Fi Tax ?!



## Hand of Vecna (Apr 27, 2002)

Candidate Proposes SF Tax.

Short of it -- a Republican candidate for an Alabama congressional seat has proposed a plan to tax science fiction to fund NASA.


----------



## Wolfspider (Apr 27, 2002)

Wow...that's a really interesting idea.  Think of it...humanity would have science fiction to thank in part for the knowledge and discoveries that would come about through space exploration.  It would no longer be seen as a geeky obsession but a real boon to all the world.


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 27, 2002)

A sci-fi tax to fund NASA and space exploration and research?

Hmm.

That's not really a bad idea. But how big is the tax, that I am concerned with.

And exactly what falls under science fiction, besides novels? Because for us who are sci-fi gamers are currently paying a bunch -- if not will be -- when the $40 revised _Star Wars_ rulebook is released, _Star Trek_ RPG Player's Guide & Narrator's Guide, and other sci-fi RPG.

Of course, it would be nice if George Lucas is willing to match the sale of the revised rulebook and the _Episode II_ movie admissions in donation toward NASA funding. Come to think of it, how much has he donated toward that cause? Not one red cent?


----------



## Zappo (Apr 28, 2002)

Hmm... a tax is compulsory. Sorry, but I don't think anyone should be forced to pay a tax to NASA in order to view the latest Star Wars. Actually, I find the idea ridiculous, since real space exploration isn't _that_ closely tied to Star Trek. It seems like someone thinks that sci-fi geeks are the only ones who want space exploration and therefore should be forced to pay for it. That's a monstrous notion in my eyes: knowledge is a goal and treasure of humanity as a whole. Besides, the technological breaks from space research benefit everyone equally, so why should only a portion of the population pull out the money to fund it?


----------



## Lothaire (Apr 28, 2002)

While on the surface this might seem wonderful, it is incedibly unfair.

Those who purchase these scifi related goods will be taxed at a higher rate then those who choose not to consume such goods.

However NASA's research and exploration provides a communal benefit.

Thus those who do not purchase Scifi related goods will reap the benefits of research that others subsidize.

Unfair I say.


----------



## Wolfspider (Apr 28, 2002)

> Besides, the technological breaks from space research benefit everyone equally, so why should only a portion of the population pull out the money to fund it?




Because otherwise there won't be any money to fund it at all?


----------



## Axiomatic Unicorn (Apr 28, 2002)

Lothaire said:
			
		

> *While on the surface this might seem wonderful, it is incedibly unfair.
> 
> Those who purchase these scifi related goods will be taxed at a higher rate then those who choose not to consume such goods.
> 
> ...




But taxing more productive people at a higher rate for a government that provides "communal benefit" is fair?


----------



## Ashtal (Apr 28, 2002)

As rediculous as this is in the first place...can you imagine?  The guy even listed toys.

TOYS.

So now that 10-year-old, out to buy Mace Windu, will, with his hard-earned paper route money, BE FUNDING NASA.

Unbelievable...


----------



## Zappo (Apr 28, 2002)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> *Because otherwise there won't be any money to fund it at all? *



Then, either divert funds from other things, or raise the taxes equally. Or make joint projects with other nations - IMO the only way to go for ultra-costly scientifical projects like space exploration.


----------



## Zappo (Apr 28, 2002)

Axiomatic Unicorn said:
			
		

> *But taxing more productive people at a higher rate for a government that provides "communal benefit" is fair? *



The benefits of having a government are much higher for people with high earnings. The benefits of space exploration are the same for sci-fi consumers and anyone else.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Apr 28, 2002)

Okay, I post this earlier this week and it rolls off with only two or three comments and now HoV post it and woo!   

http://www.enworld.org/messageboards/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11405

It is a bad tax because it targets only people that are interested in Sci-fi.  It would be like alcohol, tobacco and firearms, having a percentage of sociality footing the bill.  They then could regulate it, controling the flow and direction of what we enjoy.  

Do you want someone in Washington decideing that the books you read, the games (role & PC) you play, even the movies you see should have an extra cost of this tax on them.  It is a tax on inteligence.  Why not tax sports.


----------



## WizarDru (Apr 28, 2002)

Do the words 'attention getting publicity stunt' hold any meaning to you?  This guy isn't even *IN* congress.  He's works for a supermarket chain in some capacity.  He makes an outlandish statement, and gets an awful lot of attention for it, compared to what he might otherwise get.

I would be stunned to see this nebulous 'SF' tax actually be proposed, let alone taken seriously.


----------



## PenguinKing (Apr 28, 2002)

Y'know, that's a point - taxation based on content could be an effective form of censorship.  Take this as a precedent - what if next week, someone proposes a tax on material that depicts sex?  Or violence?  Or rock 'n' roll? 

 - Sir Bob.


----------



## Axiomatic Unicorn (Apr 28, 2002)

Zappo said:
			
		

> *The benefits of having a government are much higher for people with high earnings. The benefits of space exploration are the same for sci-fi consumers and anyone else. *




A claim I have heard many times.  Funny thing is, nobody is ever able to support it.  

If the government is giving more to the high producers, why don't they just stop?


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 28, 2002)

Zappo said:
			
		

> *Hmm... a tax is compulsory. Sorry, but I don't think anyone should be forced to pay a tax to NASA in order to view the latest Star Wars. Actually, I find the idea ridiculous, since real space exploration isn't that closely tied to Star Trek. It seems like someone thinks that sci-fi geeks are the only ones who want space exploration and therefore should be forced to pay for it. That's a monstrous notion in my eyes: knowledge is a goal and treasure of humanity as a whole. Besides, the technological breaks from space research benefit everyone equally, so why should only a portion of the population pull out the money to fund it? *



You try to convince those who prefer social service that space exploration can benefit them.  

Honestly, if it weren't for the military and the intelligence community, space exploration would just be a memory of our victorious race to land on the moon before the Soviets. 

Then again, did we actually land on the moon? Why haven't we tried to do it again in this new millenium?


----------



## Neowolf (Apr 28, 2002)

I myself am a native of Alabama, and all I can say is...please don't judge us by our politicians.  We're not all fuzzy logic-wielding morons.

Edit:
After reading that article on scifi.com, I realized something... this guy works at Publix (a grocery store).  When was the last time that a stockboy was elected to congress (no offense to any inventory tracking engineers in attendance )?


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Apr 28, 2002)

Axiomatic Unicorn said:
			
		

> *
> 
> But taxing more productive people at a higher rate for a government that provides "communal benefit" is fair? *




Heh, while I fully agree with you, it's been a fact of life for a long time.  Until we switch to a flat tax, those who produce pay more for a government that provides a communal benefit.



As for this law, I doubt it would be considered constitutional, taxing a specific form of expression is looked at really closely by the courts.  But heck unconstitutional laws are passed all the time here in America.

snipped a bit when I saw I was getting a bit too political.


----------



## William Ronald (Apr 28, 2002)

Overall, a bad idea.

A lot of technological breakthroughs, from medicines to new materials, have come out of space research.

The reason we have not gone back to the moon is that no one has yet found a way to make a guaranteed good profit out of it.  There is some talk about lunar mining, but most people on some level act as if Earth is the center of the universe.  (Copernicus not withstanding.)

Mind you knowledge does benefit people.  Even if we found the fossil remains of a single celled organism on Mars or Europa, we would have to rewrite a few science books.  Not to mention that we would have to deal with the philosophical issue of life having existed somewhere besides Earth.

I suspect when someone figures a way to make more money off of space, we will see the space program kick into high gear.  In the mean time, most politicians will continue to believe that they are the true center of the universe.


----------



## WizarDru (Apr 28, 2002)

Space exploration has yielded vast benefits in a variety of realms that you might not necessarily associate with the field.  The requirements of meeting the mission required many technological advances which trickled down into common use, such as heart monitor and a host of medical technology, better understanding of physiological response, better understanding of global weather systems, advances in electronics, engineering, transport systems, and more.


Tell people that space exploration is important, and they'll rightfully glance at you funny.  You need to tell them WHY it's important.  A job that NASA is not fulfilling to it's best ability.


----------



## Hand of Vecna (Apr 28, 2002)

Ranger REG said: 







> Then again, did we actually land on the moon? Why haven't we tried to do it again in this new millenium?




Because Uatu the Watcher doesn't want us getting caught in the crossfire of the Grey-Taelon war going on up there!


----------



## William Ronald (Apr 28, 2002)

There are times when I wonder if NASA uses the Three Stooges to provide their publicity.  As I write this, a South African is in space performing experiments to help with the AIDS crisis.  (Immune system research.)  This should be played up by NASA.

If anything comes out of this research, then the space program will have saved MILLIONS of lives on Earth.


----------



## Zappo (Apr 28, 2002)

Axiomatic Unicorn said:
			
		

> *A claim I have heard many times.  Funny thing is, nobody is ever able to support it.
> 
> If the government is giving more to the high producers, why don't they just stop?*



"Giving"? Who talked about giving? There's more to a government than just providing services (including police, welfare and military). Any government spends a very large share of its resources to control its economy so that it benefits its industry. Also, the most costly infrastructures (large motorways, for example) are usually built for economical reasons... if the motorway passing through my city vanished, to _me_ it would mean having to drive fifteen more minutes to reach my university, but it would be a major disaster for the whole Italian economy.

And, friend, when a country's economy prospers, everyone benefits, _but_ the high producers benefit proportionally more, since it's that economy that allows them to be high-gainers too.

A SF tax to fund NASA, OTOH, is unfair because everyone benefits from NASA research in the same way.







			
				Ranger REG said:
			
		

> *
> You try to convince those who prefer social service that space exploration can benefit them.
> 
> Honestly, if it weren't for the military and the intelligence community, space exploration would just be a memory of our victorious race to land on the moon before the Soviets. *



I never said you should cut the military to fund NASA. Honestly, I _thought_ so, but I didn't say it. Ooops, I said it now. 

Seriously, the military and intelligence is important, but often the funds given to military are so overwhelmingly more than those given to research, that moving a 1% from military to research would mean a major boost for science.

Since the original ideas was to raise taxes, however - for adding a tax on SF is simply raising taxes for a minority of population - I would suggest to cut nothing and raise taxes equally instead. A few dollars per year more for each person in every first-world country would give a hypothetical global space research organization some billions per year. With careful spending and some other sources of income, that could be enough.


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 28, 2002)

I would personally really like to see NASA completely cut and ended.

Now before y'all go off half-cocked and flame me, hear me out.
I am a huge supporter of missions to space.  I just don't think NASA is a good vehicle for those missions anymore.

NASA subsidizes all space missions.  That means if a company wants to launch a satellite, NASA will fund part of the launch.  This makes it impossible for private space companies to compete against NASA for these jobs.

Unfortunately, NASA is a bunch of screw-ups at this point.  The whole reason their funding keeps getting cut over and over again is because they are constantly screwing up missions.  And not little mistakes, or accidents.  I mean real screw-ups, like forgetting to convert between metric and american measurement systems, forgetting to convert between time-zones, and other really amateur mistakes that cost the U.S. taxpayers Billions of dollars. The government just isn't as good as private industry when it comes to doing things with intelligence.

In addition NASA appears completely out of touch with what the american people want them to do with their tax money.  NASA has voted to spend it's only projected long-term budget right now on a mission to Pluto, rather than a mission to Europa.  Never mind the fact that there is good evidence that there might be life on Europa (no, not little green men, just some potential sea life), never mind the fact that all of the polls of the american people were to explore Eurpoa next, no, NASA is sending a probe on a decade long mission to a ball of ice that they know, with some confidence, really is just a big ball of ice.  Nice.  And let's not even talk about their anti-space-tourism policy.

There are some very good American private space companies out there right now, who are fighting to get support primarily because NASA's subsidies block their attempts to compete in the Space industry.  Right now one of the only ones that seems able to make a go of it is XCOR (you can check them out at http://www.xcor.com/ ).  And that company is having to run VERY lean and mean in order to make it (though I think they will).

Life would be better all around for the prospects of ordinarly people making it to space if NASA were a thing of the past.


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 28, 2002)

Zappo said:
			
		

> *I never said you should cut the military to fund NASA. Honestly, I thought so, but I didn't say it. Ooops, I said it now. *



Actually, I mean to say that military and intelligence agencies rely on NASA and their expertise -- as well as their spacecraft operation -- to launch "seeing eye" and communications satellites. 

But as someone said, there are other companies willing to step in NASA's place and fulfill that role.


----------



## Zappo (Apr 28, 2002)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> *Actually, I mean to say that military and intelligence agencies rely on NASA and their expertise -- as well as their spacecraft operation -- to launch "seeing eye" and communications satellites.
> 
> But as someone said, there are other companies willing to step in NASA's place and fulfill that role. *



Oops. 

I didn't know the situation with NASA was as Mistwell said. That makes the tax idea even worse! It makes me support even more strongly the concept of a single world-wide space agency which would deal with extremely costly missions. I know that government often is less efficient than privates... but, unfortunately, there's no way a private can have the money (or the desire) to send something beyond the Moon.


----------



## Axiomatic Unicorn (Apr 28, 2002)

> "Giving"? Who talked about giving? There's more to a government than just providing services (including police, welfare and military). Any government spends a very large share of its resources to control its economy so that it benefits its industry. Also, the most costly infrastructures (large motorways, for example) are usually built for economical reasons... if the motorway passing through my city vanished, to me it would mean having to drive fifteen more minutes to reach my university, but it would be a major disaster for the whole Italian economy.
> 
> And, friend, when a country's economy prospers, everyone benefits, but the high producers benefit proportionally more, since it's that economy that allows them to be high-gainers too.




Your claim remains unsupported.

The high producers benefit proportionally more from their high production.  Not from anything the government does for them.  If the governement is proping up one group or holding another back, it should be corrected.  If, on the other hand, it treats ever person the same, then every person should be taxed the same, without bias against their productivity.

If you produce more you are a benefit to the economy, yet the government punishes you for it.  

In 1999 in America, 10% of taxpayers paid 66.5% (TWO-THIRDS!!) of the income taxes.  (They produced 21.4% of the income.)  I doubt many of these people will find the idea of being targeted for funds collection to be a new concept.


----------



## Green Knight (Apr 28, 2002)

Somebody asked why we haven't gone back to the moon, yet. What, do we just have money to burn on bs? Are Americans supposed to cough up billions of dollars just so we can send a couple of guys up there for no real reason? What're they gonna do, plant another flag? Not as if we're running out of moondirt and are in desperate need for more. 

If we ever go back to the moon, it should be for a reason other than "Why not?" A tangible reason which'll produce tangible results. We've already sent people to the moon for the purposes of sight-seeing and to one-up the Russians. Nothing will be accomplished but wasting money better spent elsewhere if we send more people there just for "the hell of it". 

And you make some good points, Mistwell. Be nice if private industries were allowed to do whatever they want to do in space without NASA butting their heads in. If some company wants to have a space tourism business then let them. A mission to Europa WOULD be more interesting than a mission to Pluto, that's for damn sure.


----------



## PenguinKing (Apr 28, 2002)

Axiomatic Unicorn said:
			
		

> *Your claim remains unsupported.
> 
> The high producers benefit proportionally more from their high production.  Not from anything the government does for them*



Wrap your head around this:

1) The government builds roads.

2) A large trucking company uses the roads more than, say, a guy who designs websites out of his basement.

3) Therefore, the trucking company should pay a larger share of road maintenance than the website designer.

What part of that do you not understand?  The point is that high producers generally make use of the infrastructure the government provides more often and represent a larger wear on that infrastructure than low producers; so why should everyone pay equally if they're not getting the same use out of it?

 - Sir Bob.


----------



## Zappo (Apr 28, 2002)

PenguinKing said:
			
		

> *The point is that high producers generally make use of the infrastructure the government provides more often and represent a larger wear on that infrastructure than low producers; so why should everyone pay equally if they're not getting the same use out of it?*



...and the same is for less tangible but not less costly "things" the government does for you, like economical maneuvers. As far as I know, every government in democratic countries taxes the high-producers more, and no party that I know of contests this. 

Taxing "everyone equally" in the sense that you propose would be deeply unfair to the poor and average people.

You said 10% of taxpayers, who produced 21.4% of the income, paid two third of the income taxes. If they paid 21.4% of the income taxes - the same proportion as their income - it would mean that the remaining 90% would have to pay the 78.6% of the taxes instead of the 33.5% they pay now. I really don't think that more than doubling income taxes for the 90% of the population would be a wise choice, especially since it's the "poorest" (well, least rich) 90%!


----------



## Axiomatic Unicorn (Apr 28, 2002)

PenguinKing said:
			
		

> *Wrap your head around this:
> 
> 1) The government builds roads.
> 
> ...




And the large trucking company pays much higher amounts of gasoline and tag taxes, which go for paying for the roads.  User fees such as this for tangible consumption are completely appropriate.    A web designer who produces more than the trucker still must pay more taxes.


----------



## Axiomatic Unicorn (Apr 28, 2002)

Zappo said:
			
		

> *...and the same is for less tangible but not less costly "things" the government does for you, like economical maneuvers.
> *



*

Yeah, like those "things".  Uh-huh.

If the governement provides a service to an individual, the individual should pay.  That is not the way it works.




			As far as I know, every government in democratic countries taxes the high-producers more, and no party that I know of contests this.
		
Click to expand...



Of course, because the majority will always consider it "fair" to screw the minority.




			Taxing "everyone equally" in the sense that you propose would be deeply unfair to the poor and average people.
		
Click to expand...



No it would not.  No more than charging everyone the same for a gallon of milk or a movie ticket.





			You said 10% of taxpayers, who produced 21.4% of the income, paid two third of the income taxes. If they paid 21.4% of the income taxes - the same proportion as their income - it would mean that the remaining 90% would have to pay the 78.6% of the taxes instead of the 33.5% they pay now. I really don't think that more than doubling income taxes for the 90% of the population would be a wise choice, especially since it's the "poorest" (well, least rich) 90%!
		
Click to expand...


*
Not necessarily.  Consumption taxes are voluntary, but will still result in the high producers paying a much larger share.  User fees for goods and services that are provided directly to a specific group would also off-set the need for taxation.

Also, with 50% of the nation paying less than 5% of income taxes and many of those paying none at all (or even negative), a controlling block exists that has no concern regarding the tax structure and where the money goes.  Creating a fair system where all indivduals have some accountability would establish political pressure to control spending.

Restraint is non-existant because the keys to the electorate are completely separated from it.  Many people consider govenrment money to be from a magical bottomless bucket.  Because from thier perspective, it is.


----------



## Zappo (Apr 28, 2002)

AU, economy and politics are more complex than what you think. As long as you think that a government is just a megacorporation which sells goods and services to everyone, of course you won't understand why it makes different prices to different people. There is no invisible hand. The market left to itself eventually collapses.  It has been proven over and over again. Controlling it, avoiding recessions, making the NASDAQ go up... all things which favor industries and high-wage individuals much, much more than the average or poor people. Do you think these things happen by magic? Or because millions of people who mostly don't even know each other somehow work in concert to better the economy? They happen because someone makes them happen. And it takes money to do it. A helluvalot of money.

Besides, that 90% of the population are the consumers... any money they give to the state is money which isn't being spent to buy a new modem to view the web designer's pages. A massive tax increase would probably cause a major recession in a matter of weeks.


----------



## Axiomatic Unicorn (Apr 28, 2002)

Zappo said:
			
		

> *AU, economy and politics are more complex than what you think. As long as you think that a government is just a megacorporation which sells goods and services to everyone, of course you won't understand why it makes different prices to different people. There is no invisible hand. The market left to itself eventually collapses.  It has been proven over and over again. Controlling it, avoiding recessions, making the NASDAQ go up... all things which favor industries and high-wage individuals much, much more than the average or poor people. Do you think these things happen by magic? Or because millions of people who mostly don't even know each other somehow work in concert to better the economy? They happen because someone makes them happen. And it takes money to do it. A helluvalot of money.
> 
> Besides, that 90% of the population are the consumers... any money they give to the state is money which isn't being spent to buy a new modem to view the web designer's pages. A massive tax increase would probably cause a major recession in a matter of weeks. *




Zappo,

My uderstand of economy and politics is more complex than you think.  

Mis-stating my position does not dispute it.


----------



## PenguinKing (Apr 28, 2002)

Axiomatic Unicorn said:
			
		

> *My uderstand of economy and politics is more complex than you think.
> 
> Mis-stating my position does not dispute it. *



Um, claiming that someone has misinterpretted you, then declining to point out the misapprehension, is generally considered dodging the issue. 

 - Sir Bob.


----------



## Axiomatic Unicorn (Apr 28, 2002)

PenguinKing said:
			
		

> *Um, claiming that someone has misinterpretted you, then declining to point out the misapprehension, is generally considered dodging the issue.
> 
> - Sir Bob. *




First, pretty much the entire statement was a misrepresentation. (Hell, somehow he seems to think that I want tax INCREASES)

Second, being as he used an entire post of mis-representing me as a method of dodging everything I had stated in the prior post, I do not feel any concern.


----------



## PenguinKing (Apr 28, 2002)

Axiomatic Unicorn said:
			
		

> *First, pretty much the entire statement was a misrepresentation. (Hell, somehow he seems to think that I want tax INCREASES)*



In theory, yes - if you want flat taxation without falling too much short of the current level of tax revenue, you'd end up with people on the low end paying significantly _more_ than they're paying now, as well as people on the high end paying significantly less.

 - Sir Bob.


----------



## Roland Delacroix (Apr 28, 2002)

Zappo said:
			
		

> *Seriously, the military and intelligence is important, but often the funds given to military are so overwhelmingly more than those given to research, that moving a 1% from military to research would mean a major boost for science.
> *




First, economically a flat percentage tax is the best thing.  Skewing it to tax the poor more is unfair.  Skewing it to tax the rich more cuts consumption sharply since the rich buy so much.  They did this in the eightys with a luxury tax and almost killed several industrys and increased unemployment when the rich stopped buying yahts, limos, furs, etc and just invested.  The reality is that economics will always be trumped by politics and it is difficult to explain to Joe Voter why Bill Gates gets taxed the same percentage as he does.  So they just tax the rich a little more.

The funds given to military pre-Bush were a pittance.  Planes, tanks, ships, weapons of all sizes only last so many years, and their decommision dates are rapidly approaching. Since no recent presidents bothered to replace them, instead shuffling that tax money elsewhere, when they become unsafe for the military to use they will be gone.  It takes years to build new ships.  Better hope our air superiority is such that we don't need carriers for a while.  Luckily little bush is working overtime to fix that.


----------



## Zappo (Apr 28, 2002)

AU:

Enough running around, please.

I said you wanted to lower the taxes for the high-income class, and implied from that an INCREASE in the taxes for the average-to-low-income class. So yes, you are proposing a substantial tax increase for the vast majority of the population. Either that, or the money comes raining from the sky, I suppose. My support here is simple mathematics.

I have stated more than once that you seem to think of a government as a body whose only function is to provide services and goods, for a price. You have not denied this. I strongly disagree, and as a support I can point to the fact that all democratic governments have more functions than that. I don't think all democratic governments in the world are headed by screwballs who don't know what's good for them.

Your assertion that the minority tries to screw the majority can be viewed from the opposite way and makes just as much sense, which is zero. My support here is: 
1) Historically, in economy and politics minorities have always been screwing majorities, not the other way round, and
2) the majority getting the best things is pretty much what democracy is all about. Democracy is an attempt to counter point 1 above.

You said that I underestimate your comprehension of economics and politics. I hope so! But from what you posted, I can't see how. I'm far from an expert on the subjects. If you think I have misunderstood you, please say where and how, instead of accusing me of misrepresenting you. Otherwise, _you_ are misrepresenting you.

I'm getting rather tired, so unless you add something interesting to the discussion I think I'll get back to D&D.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Apr 28, 2002)

PenguinKing said:
			
		

> *In theory, yes - if you want flat taxation without falling too much short of the current level of tax revenue, you'd end up with people on the low end paying significantly more than they're paying now, as well as people on the high end paying significantly less.
> 
> - Sir Bob. *




Well historically nope.  History has shown that everytime you lower taxes the government pulls in more money.  Yeah sure there is a mark where you can't go below before you start making less, but they could cut taxes to a flat 15% keep the same standard deductions we have now, and they would likely pull in more money from taxes than they ever have.


----------



## Zappo (Apr 28, 2002)

Roland: what the rich spend in luxury goods (luxury as in: yacht) is nothing, _nothing_ compared to what the real consumer base, the average people, spend in luxury goods (luxury as in: a TV set). _They_ are the engine of consumism, not the upper 2% or so that buy ships and expensive jewels. A crisis in the furs sector can never be anything more than a crisis in the furs sector. If the average person started spending considerably less for a long period of time, it would be a major recession the likes of which have rarely been seen. As for the military... well, I've heard many things about the USA military, but this is the first time I hear it's underfunded. Anyway, I don't really care about the USA military, fund it the way you see fit. I was just suggesting a possible source of funds for NASA, but the thing I'd really like is a worldwide space research agency funded by all rich nations. BTW, I agree wholeheartedly on the fact that NASA has a history of spending its money badly.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Apr 28, 2002)

Zappo said:
			
		

> *AU:
> 
> You said that I underestimate your comprehension of economics and politics. I hope so! But from what you posted, I can't see how. I'm far from an expert on the subjects. If you think I have misunderstood you, please say where and how, instead of accusing me of misrepresenting you. Otherwise, you are misrepresenting you.
> 
> I'm getting rather tired, so unless you add something interesting to the discussion I think I'll get back to D&D. *




Of course you could try being polite at the same time.  Snide comments like the above don't add to any conversation.  AU has shown a perfectly fine grasp of economics and politics, just one that differs from yours.  You do realize that there is more than one economic theory running around on the planet right now don't you?

   Ooops a snide comment.


----------



## Roland Delacroix (Apr 28, 2002)

Zappo said:
			
		

> *Roland: what the rich spend in luxury goods (luxury as in: yacht) is nothing, nothing compared to what the real consumer base, the average people, spend in luxury goods (luxury as in: a TV set). They are the engine of consumism, not the upper 2% or so that buy ships and expensive jewels. A crisis in the furs sector can never be anything more than a crisis in the furs sector. If the average person started spending considerably less for a long period of time, it would be a major recession the likes of which have rarely been seen. As for the military... well, I've heard many things about the USA military, but this is the first time I hear it's underfunded. Anyway, I don't really care about the USA military, fund it the way you see fit. I was just suggesting a possible source of funds for NASA, but the thing I'd really like is a worldwide space research agency funded by all rich nations. BTW, I agree wholeheartedly on the fact that NASA has a history of spending its money badly. *




Well, history disagrees with you.  The upper 2% create a lot of consumption and create a lot of jobs.

My father is a rather high officer in the Navy so i get alot of insider knowledge.  I'm in military circles alot.  As well most of my friends in HS have gone on to military careers.

No time for more specifics, game in 5 minuites


----------



## Axiomatic Unicorn (Apr 29, 2002)

PenguinKing said:
			
		

> *In theory, yes - if you want flat taxation without falling too much short of the current level of tax revenue, you'd end up with people on the low end paying significantly more than they're paying now, as well as people on the high end paying significantly less.
> 
> - Sir Bob. *




Nope.  As I stated, it is the concept of income tax that I am disputing.  A consumption tax could be placed in effect that would still result in the high producers pay significantly more taxes.

We have gone afield, but my point at the start was that arbitrary taxation of a group already exists, so, if one accepts that, it is hard to complain about a new arbitrary taxation.

And I also DO think we should reduce government spending.  (And NO I would not flip a switch today if I could.  It needs to be a process, of course)


----------



## Axiomatic Unicorn (Apr 29, 2002)

Zappo said:
			
		

> *AU:
> 
> Enough running around, please.
> *



*

Does that mean you are goign to stop?




			I said you wanted to lower the taxes for the high-income class, and implied from that an INCREASE in the taxes for the average-to-low-income class. So yes, you are proposing a substantial tax increase for the vast majority of the population. Either that, or the money comes raining from the sky, I suppose. My support here is simple mathematics.
		
Click to expand...



Wrong.

See above.




			I have stated more than once that you seem to think of a government as a body whose only function is to provide services and goods, for a price. You have not denied this. I strongly disagree, and as a support I can point to the fact that all democratic governments have more functions than that. I don't think all democratic governments in the world are headed by screwballs who don't know what's good for them.
		
Click to expand...



You have stated, but I have not.

Though you constantly fail to enumerate these "functions".

I strongly believe that government has a duty to assure that individuals are protected from the use of force or fraud by other individuals or groups.  This function however, provides equal benefit to all.  

In terms of economic policy, free individuals can do this as well as governments can.  But then it gets called "unfair trade practice".  

Does your "screwballs" comment somehow imply soemthing about my thinking?




			Your assertion that the minority tries to screw the majority can be viewed from the opposite way and makes just as much sense, which is zero. My support here is: 
1) Historically, in economy and politics minorities have always been screwing majorities, not the other way round, and
2) the majority getting the best things is pretty much what democracy is all about. Democracy is an attempt to counter point 1 above.
		
Click to expand...



It is certainly human nature that one group will try to screw other groups.
A just government will ATTEMPT to minimze that.  Changing which group screws who, even if done democratically, does not create justice.





			You said that I underestimate your comprehension of economics and politics. I hope so! But from what you posted, I can't see how. I'm far from an expert on the subjects. If you think I have misunderstood you, please say where and how, instead of accusing me of misrepresenting you. Otherwise, you are misrepresenting you.
		
Click to expand...



please, you have put many false statements in my mouth.  That is you misrepresentign me.




			I'm getting rather tired, so unless you add something interesting to the discussion I think I'll get back to D&D.
		
Click to expand...


*
ok


----------



## hong (Apr 29, 2002)

Axiomatic Unicorn said:
			
		

> *
> And the large trucking company pays much higher amounts of gasoline and tag taxes, which go for paying for the roads.  User fees such as this for tangible consumption are completely appropriate.    A web designer who produces more than the trucker still must pay more taxes. *




You are assuming

1) petrol levies and similar taxes are specifically earmarked for purposes of maintaining roads. AFAIK, this isn't the case in most countries; all taxes go into the general revenue pool, and the pool is divvied up in whichever way is deemed most beneficial.

2) the pattern by which the tax is levied matches the pattern of wear on the roads. Again, AFAIK, this isn't the case. Road wear and tear is dependent not just on than just distance travelled, but also vehicle tonnage. In particular, a large truck will cause a lot more damage to a road than a passenger car, other things being equal.

3) the amount of tax collected via petrol levies and whatnot is sufficient to meet road maintenance purposes. This is clearly not the case; if it were, there would be no need for tolls, for example.

4) the only purpose of government (as it applies to this particular subject) is to maintain the road network. This isn't so; especially with expanding vehicle use, the question of building new roads and encouraging alternative means of transport is an important one.


In general, infrastructure spending is one of the key ways in which the benefits of government accrue more to wealthier people than poorer ones. Sometimes, a way can be found to match taxation exactly with these benefits. Often, such a way cannot be found, or implementing it would be impractical. Until we live in a perfect world where everything can be accounted for and externalities don't exist, it's perfectly reasonable to have a progressive tax system to reflect such realities.

Furthermore, even if we lived in such a perfect world, it might still be reasonable to use a progressive tax system. One of the recognised functions of government (although a rather unfashionable one, in some circles) is wealth redistribution: to minimise the disparity between the rich and the poor. Collecting more tax from the rich is one way of achieving this. This is not intrinsically good or bad; it all depends on your political leanings.


----------



## PenguinKing (Apr 29, 2002)

Axiomatic Unicorn said:
			
		

> *Nope.  As I stated, it is the concept of income tax that I am disputing.  A consumption tax could be placed in effect that would still result in the high producers pay significantly more taxes.*



So you're in favor of the GST? 

(Sorry, Canadian referrence.  )



			
				Axiomatic Unicorn said:
			
		

> *We have gone afield, but my point at the start was that arbitrary taxation of a group already exists, so, if one accepts that, it is hard to complain about a new arbitrary taxation.*



*There are more sides to the issue than just that - like the point I raised earlier that taxation based on the content of literature could amount to censorship, depending on the nature and extent of said taxation.

 - Sir Bob.*


----------



## hong (Apr 29, 2002)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> *
> In addition NASA appears completely out of touch with what the american people want them to do with their tax money.  NASA has voted to spend it's only projected long-term budget right now on a mission to Pluto, rather than a mission to Europa.  Never mind the fact that there is good evidence that there might be life on Europa (no, not little green men, just some potential sea life), never mind the fact that all of the polls of the american people were to explore Eurpoa next, no, NASA is sending a probe on a decade long mission to a ball of ice that they know, with some confidence, really is just a big ball of ice.  Nice.  And let's not even talk about their anti-space-tourism policy.
> *




One of the slogans often trotted out in the long-running creation/evolution flamewars is just as relevant here:

"Science is not a democracy"

From the point of view of scientific research, whether or not lots of Americans think going to Europa would be a cool idea is neither here nor there. Now it's quite possible that NASA's research committee is populated by second-grade administrators or political hacks, but I think that's just being needlessly cynical.

Furthermore, the Pluto mission _does_ have a significant research purpose, even if it's not one that lends itself easily to evocative headlines. Here's a recent Scientific American article on this subject:

http://www.sciam.com/2002/0502issue/0502stern.html


----------



## hong (Apr 29, 2002)

PenguinKing said:
			
		

> *There are more sides to the issue than just that - like the point I raised earlier that taxation based on the content of literature could amount to censorship, depending on the nature and extent of said taxation.
> 
> - Sir Bob. *




Given the libertarian tendencies of many SF authors (*cough* Baen *cough*), the idea of levying a special tax on them is immensely ironic, not to mention appealing.


----------



## PenguinKing (Apr 29, 2002)

That may be, but it sets a precedent.  What if a "sci-fi tax" is passed, and next week someone proposes a "sexually-oriented material tax"?  Or a "depictions of violence tax"?  Or an "advocacy of non-Christian values tax"?

 - Sir Bob.


----------



## hong (Apr 29, 2002)

PenguinKing said:
			
		

> *That may be, but it sets a precedent.  What if a "sci-fi tax" is passed, and next week someone proposes a "sexually-oriented material tax"?  Or a "depictions of violence tax"?  Or an "advocacy of non-Christian values tax"?
> *




Oh, I'm not saying the proposal is necessarily a good idea, it's just very funny.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Apr 29, 2002)

What's sad is that NASA's budget is around one-half of one percent of the federal budget. In recent years NASA has been cut to the bone, and has to keep doing the high-profile shuttle missions in order to keep its funding. Everytime I hear someone complain about how going into space is a waste of time, and that the money would be better spent on more earthly concerns, it makes me wonder if the human race really deserves to have a higher destiny. There will never be a time that some _won't_ think the money would be better spent elsewhere. Besides, that less-than-one-percent of the budget is what's keeping us from solving all the world's ills? We wouldn't have homeless people or disease if we spent the space budget on fixing those problems? That small amount of money is what's going to put us over the top in bringing about solutions to all our problems?

As for Europa vs. Pluto, the thing is, if NASA were properly funded, both missions could be done. People point out all the failed missions that have plagued NASA in recent years, using them as proof that NASA doesn't need to be funded, yet somehow don't make the connection between slashing NASA's budget and those disasters. Personally, I would rather the guys at NASA/JPL/and all the rest could make the decisions as to what missions to undertake - scientific advancement can't be legislated. It happens as a result of dedicated experts spending their lives trying to make them happen. Besides, Pluto is still virtually a mystery; I'd rather at least _one_ mission make it there in my lifetime. 

Y'know, when I was 13, in 1979, I really thought that by 2000 we'd have sent manned missions to Mars, that we'd have permanant Moon bases, that orbiatl space stations would be common enough for people to go to them on a regular basis. At the rate we advanced in space exploration in the 60s and 70s, it seemed like there was nowhere to go but up to the stars. It seemed mankind's destiny lay beyond the Earth, and we were rushing to find it. Somewhere along the way we became small-minded and myopic. It's a very saddening thing for me personally.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Apr 29, 2002)

As for the original topic, I can't decide whether the guy is a scifi fan who is frustrated at the lack progress in the space program, or one of those misinformed folk who thinks the space program is a much bigger drain on the budget than it really is and thinks only those who are interested in space should pay for it.

As for getting rid of NASA, I don't think it's quite time for that. The US government is really the only entity right now with the resources to pull off real missions. And by "real," I mean missions beyond putting commuications satellites in orbit. What we need is a visionary leader, someone who looks ahead and wants the US to lead the way into space, someone who looks at the long run and decides to do something that may not be the most popular thing to do right this minute but which will benefit us somewhere down the road. I don't see a leader like that appearing anytime soon in the modern political climate - there is too much catering to people to get votes for anyone to be a visionary.


----------



## Henry (Apr 29, 2002)

Col. Hardisson:
I couldn't agree more. I would in fact go one step further in saying that NASA and Space exploration assist the economy of all governments more than anyone realizes. Without the funding that has gone into NASA over the past 40 years, many current advances in plastics, ceramics, and consumer conveniences that we now have absorbed into our daily lifestyle - WOULD NOT EXIST, or would be in their infancies even today. Space exploration, the advancement of human knowledge, and the power of cooperation engendered by the sharing of a common human task can accomplish many things that would not be considered possible.

Green Knight:
Take for example, missions and the goal of colonization to Mars. I can conceive of at least 10 to 20 new technologies that would benefit from the funding needed to enable prolonged human existance in hostile environments, such as extraterrestrial ones. Examples include:

New techniques for feeding large populations
Improved insulatory and energy-dispersive materials
Improved methods for generation and recyclable sustenance of breatheable air
Processes to ensure human survival against rapid compression and decompression
Improved and more economical interplanetary propulsion systems
All these problems and a dozen more are necessary to solve in order to plan for colonization of extraterrestrial locations - and every single one means new jobs, new markets, new opportunities, and new standards of living for everyone on Earth in time. What seems impossible was just as impossible to war-weary 1950's and 1960's United States culture - and dozens of NASA technologies from the Apollo and Mercury programs are integrated into our society today. It is hardly wasting money if you invest it in the betterment of tomorrow's ills rather than today's.

Zappo: economic theories abound, and what works in one country does not necessarily work in another. It's a more difficult thing to encapsulate all of economics into one theory than anyone should have a person believe.

Finally, regarding the whole "charge the trucking company more money" scenario: any economist worth his salt will tell you that charging taxes on a business will cost the consumer the difference. No business on this planet will suck up the cost of new taxes themselves. They will pass it to the convenience stores, who will then pass it to the consumers. The ones who will pay any road taxes are those poor web designers who don't use the roads, but instead go down to the 7-11 store to pick up a snack or a pack of smokes. Oops, those cigarettes are 3.50 a pack? Guess we see where the taxes went now.  The ones who CAN'T charge somebody else down the line for the increased cost are those who actually "pay the taxes."

Sci-fi Tax? No thanks. I'll be the Snidely Whiplash who robs the NEA (or better yet the IRS) of government funds and passes their funds over to the NASA for further advancement of knowledge and the human condition. YMMV.

Good night, all.


----------



## hong (Apr 29, 2002)

Henry said:
			
		

> *Col. Hardisson:
> I couldn't agree more. I would in fact go one step further in saying that NASA and Space exploration assist the economy of all governments more than anyone realizes. Without the funding that has gone into NASA over the past 40 years, many current advances in plastics, ceramics, and consumer conveniences that we now have absorbed into our daily lifestyle - WOULD NOT EXIST, or would be in their infancies even today.
> *




Mind you, the same argument has been made about World War II.


----------



## PenguinKing (Apr 29, 2002)

hong said:
			
		

> *Mind you, the same argument has been made about World War II.  *



Exactly - if space exploration gets you the same technological and social benefit as bombing the holy hell out of half the planet... well, I think I know which one looks more cost-effective to _me_. 

 - Sir Bob.


----------



## hong (Apr 29, 2002)

PenguinKing said:
			
		

> *Exactly - if space exploration gets you the same technological and social benefit as bombing the holy hell out of half the planet... well, I think I know which one looks more cost-effective to me.
> *




Nah. The only thing that can be said is that NASA is a better vehicle for realising humankind's destiny than World War II.

Although that depends on accepting there is such a thing as "destiny", what that destiny is, and whether tangible representations of the quest for its realisation are consistent with it.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Apr 29, 2002)

I think the worst way to try to realize one's destiny is to contemplate it - thinking too hard about one's destiny is bad. Just get out and do it. My brother has a saying he likes to use in humorously frustrating situations: "Do _something_ even if it's wrong." Patton said it better in the quote I use in my sig on EZBoard: "A good plan, violently [well, let's tone down Patton a bit and say instead _vigorously_  ] executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week." Live like you have a destiny, and it may come to pass.


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 29, 2002)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> *
> As for Europa vs. Pluto, the thing is, if NASA were properly funded, both missions could be done. People point out all the failed missions that have plagued NASA in recent years, using them as proof that NASA doesn't need to be funded, yet somehow don't make the connection between slashing NASA's budget and those disasters. Personally, I would rather the guys at NASA/JPL/and all the rest could make the decisions as to what missions to undertake - scientific advancement can't be legislated. It happens as a result of dedicated experts spending their lives trying to make them happen. Besides, Pluto is still virtually a mystery; I'd rather at least one mission make it there in my lifetime.
> *




You know, it's nice to think that NASA's problems are because of their funding issues.  But you're lying to yourself if you think that is the cause.  Money had nothing to do with NASA's failure to convert american measurement units to metric units.  Money had nothing to do with their failure to account for time zone changes between monitoring stations.  Those were two of the major mistakes made in the last 5 years, costing BILLIONS of dollars from the NASA budget.  The people who made those mistakes were not underpaid.  The individual salaries of NASA folks are not low, and the complaint about money is always about funding additional missions, not increasing salaries to attract more intelligent employees. 

The problem is that NASA, as an institution, is unfortunately lazy and corrupt at this point.  Reliance on computers to make all the decisions, including basic fact checking, is an instutional issue, not a funding issue. 

And if you think mission decisions are made based on science, you are sadly naive.  Which missions get the okay is almost exclusively politics at this point.  Want to guess which of two missions will be backed? Find out which congressional disctricts the proposed projects will be based out of, and which aerospace companies, and you will have the data you need.  Remember, this isn't some committee composed of elder scientists studying data and making rationale, objective decisions about mission funding.  This is a government agency.  All its funding is approved through congress.  All it's leaders are political appointees.  Most of its missions are dictated in some way by military concerns.

Now take the case of Beal Aerospace, and ask yourself why it is now out of business.  Don't know about the issue? Read Beal's final press release on the issue at http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0010/24beal/letter.html .

Nasa basically drove Beal out of the business, and don't tell me it was out of rational, non-political, objective scientific decisionmaking.  Nobody disputes that Beal was on the road to making fairly significant scientific breakthroughs.  Nope, that was all politcs.  

As Beal said "We wonder where the computer industry would be today if the U.S. government had selected and subsidized one or two personal computer systems when Microsoft, Inc. or Compaq, Inc. were in their infancy."  I can tell you where....you wouldn't be reading this message right now.


----------



## hong (Apr 29, 2002)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> *
> And if you think mission decisions are made based on science, you are sadly naive.  Which missions get the okay is almost exclusively politics at this point.  Want to guess which of two missions will be backed? Find out which congressional disctricts the proposed projects will be based out of, and which aerospace companies, and you will have the data you need.  Remember, this isn't some committee composed of elder scientists studying data and making rationale, objective decisions about mission funding.  This is a government agency.  All its funding is approved through congress.  All it's leaders are political appointees.  Most of its missions are dictated in some way by military concerns.
> *




The same can be said of the NSF, the NIH, the FDA, or any other large government agency. NASA just gets more flak because space shuttles, rockets and interplanetary probes are more visible than clinical trials or safety trials. Unless you're suggesting that government should get out of the business of funding scientific research entirely, I'm not sure what your point is. AFAIK, no-one in the mainstream of politics has ever suggested this.

The point you made is that polls show that lots of American people want NASA to go to Europa. This is irrelevant, and would remain irrelevant even if NASA's science policy was directed by the most pure-hearted of people.

And really, what does "it's all about politics" really mean, except that people do get a say in what gets done? Unless you're completely disenfranchised and/or disillusioned, you have a say in what happens. Now that say may be less significant than Bill Gates', and the government reserves the right to ignore you, but last I checked, the US was still a democracy. It's also a lot less corrupt than many other places I could mention. The "I'm more cynical than you" schtick would be more persuasive if it was coming from someone from, eg, Liberia.


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 29, 2002)

hong said:
			
		

> *
> 
> The same can be said of the NSF, the NIH, the FDA, or any other large government agency. NASA just gets more flak because space shuttles, rockets and interplanetary probes are more visible than clinical trials or safety trials. Unless you're suggesting that government should get out of the business of funding scientific research entirely, I'm not sure what your point is. AFAIK, no-one in the mainstream of politics has ever suggested this.
> 
> ...




First, let me say that the "all politics" comment was a response to someone who thinks NASA mission decisions are made by expert scientists, not by politicians.  The comment had a point, in the context it was made.

Second, it is relevant that people want the mission to Europa.  There is scientific benefit from such a mission, just as there is from the Pluto mission.  Nobody I know of made the contention that the Europa mission was not equally as valuable as the Pluto mission (and plenty of people have said that it is less scientifically valueable). It's taxes that pay for the mission.  All else being equal, the decision on which mission should be funded should go with how the people funding it (the tax payers) want it to go, rather than which aerospace company has the better lobbyist.

When I said it was "all politics" i didn't mean it was all democratic politics.  It isn't.  It's machievellian politics.  It's which congressperson has the ability to yank some pork for their district and the aerospace company there.  It's lobbyist influence.   I'd rather have the masses (call them / us dumb if you will) choose rather than that kind of politics.

Third, I am not suggesting that the government should get out of the business of funding scientific research entirely.  I am saying that this particular agency has become too lazy and corrupt to do the job competently, and because this agency is also intentionally preventing private business from picking up the slack, it would be better if NASA ended.  If you still want the government funding space missions, start over with a clean slate.  Make a new agency that doesn't have the lazy institutionalized attidude that this one has (and making a point of mentioning this attitude as being one of the reasons the last agency was ended will go a long way to change the attitudes of the people in the new agency).  Mandate that they not compete directly with private industry, which is the same mandate the NSF, the NIH, the FDA all have (they regulate private industry often, but they do not compete directly with it).  And finally, make sure the mission choices dictated by the Agencies personnel, and have a fixed budget (much like the NSF, the NIH, and the FDA), not a variable budget based on missions planned up to the next budget vote.  Then perhaps you will have a functional space agency.  That isn't what we have right now.


----------



## hong (Apr 29, 2002)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> *
> Second, it is relevant that people want the mission to Europa.  There is scientific benefit from such a mission, just as there is from the Pluto mission.  Nobody I know of made the contention that the Europa mission was not equally as valuable as the Pluto mission (and plenty of people have said that it is less scientifically valueable). It's taxes that pay for the mission.  *




And nobody ever disputed that there is benefit from a Europa mission. Who is going to judge the relative benefits of these missions? You? A bunch of people who answer an opinion poll?



> *All else being equal, the decision on which mission should be funded should go with how the people funding it (the tax payers) want it to go, rather than which aerospace company has the better lobbyist.
> *




When it comes to issues of scientific merit, there's no such thing as "all else being equal". While it's possible to rank different projects so that (for example) trying to prove pi = 24/7 is less worthy of government funding than mapping the human genome, any issue of real controversy is always going to be just that -- controversial.

If both missions really do have "equal merit" (a rather nebulous claim to start with), then it really doesn't matter, from a scientific point of view, which one goes ahead. No other point of view matters. There are also issues to do with planetary orbits and timing which mean that the "window" for a useful Pluto mission is relatively small. Because of that, I don't have any problem with the Pluto mission, regardless of what polls say. We can always go to Europa later, but this is less true of Pluto.

Come to think of it, how did this devolve into a Pluto-vs-Europa argument? As far as I know, NASA is committed to both projects. It's just that one is going ahead before the other; a decision that makes perfect sense in the light of the issues mentioned above.



> *
> If you still want the government funding space missions, start over with a clean slate.
> 
> (snip much rhetoric)
> ...




Year Zero solutions don't have much credibility as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Axiomatic Unicorn (Apr 29, 2002)

hong said:
			
		

> *
> 
> You are assuming
> 
> ...



*

I am not assuming your first point.

I agree that there is no means for clearly establishing a 1-1 cost to fee for this good and services that governments do provide.

However, my point remains that the trucking company would spend more money in gas and tag fees.  They pay more on that basis and therefore they are being double billed if they also pay more based on income.  How the money is eventually earmarked is not as significant as the fact that the trucker does already pay a larger share of the taxes.  

Your second point is not an issue.  Different vehicles pay different tag rates.  I am not saying that the system now is perfect by any means.  I am proposing that an alternate system could be established which would be more fair than simple income taxation.  If big trucks are not paying proportionatly enough now, that should adjusted.

I am also not assuming your 3 and 4th points.  Tolls, for example, are a perfectly valid form of user fee.  And I never in any way implied your 4th point.  To the point, I have listed other issues.  Rather, I was simply responding to a specific example raised by someone else.




			Furthermore, even if we lived in such a perfect world, it might still be reasonable to use a progressive tax system. One of the recognised functions of government (although a rather unfashionable one, in some circles) is wealth redistribution: to minimise the disparity between the rich and the poor. Collecting more tax from the rich is one way of achieving this. This is not intrinsically good or bad; it all depends on your political leanings.
		
Click to expand...


*
Fine, and if you support this arbitrary judgement choice, you do not have a moral basis for being opposed to other people making their own arbitrary judgements as well.  And if those people choose to tax SF, then SF may become taxed.


----------



## Axiomatic Unicorn (Apr 29, 2002)

PenguinKing said:
			
		

> *There are more sides to the issue than just that - like the point I raised earlier that taxation based on the content of literature could amount to censorship, depending on the nature and extent of said taxation.
> 
> - Sir Bob. *




Agreed.  Though that does does not seem to be the focal point of the concern expressed so far.  

Don't get me wrong, I am oppossed to the idea.  I also agree that it is mainly a publicity stunt that has very little chance of ever even seeign a vote.


----------



## Axiomatic Unicorn (Apr 29, 2002)

Henry said:
			
		

> *
> Finally, regarding the whole "charge the trucking company more money" scenario: any economist worth his salt will tell you that charging taxes on a business will cost the consumer the difference. No business on this planet will suck up the cost of new taxes themselves. They will pass it to the convenience stores, who will then pass it to the consumers. The ones who will pay any road taxes are those poor web designers who don't use the roads, but instead go down to the 7-11 store to pick up a snack or a pack of smokes. Oops, those cigarettes are 3.50 a pack? Guess we see where the taxes went now.  The ones who CAN'T charge somebody else down the line for the increased cost are those who actually "pay the taxes."
> 
> *




I agree 100% with that.  But it also applies regardless of the form of taxes.  So it cancels out in the end.  Whether you raise taxes in the form of new gasoline taxes or increased income taxes, either way it is a new expense that will be passed on the the consumers.


----------



## hong (Apr 29, 2002)

Axiomatic Unicorn said:
			
		

> *
> However, my point remains that the trucking company would spend more money in gas and tag fees. They pay more on that basis and therefore they are being double billed if they also pay more based on income. How the money is eventually earmarked is not as significant as the fact that the trucker does already pay a larger share of the taxes. *




And there's nothing wrong with that. "Infrastructure", even from the circumscribed point of view of the trucker, is more than just roads. It's the judicial and legal system that enforces road safety laws and keeps crime down; the hospital system that treats road accident victims; the regulatory system that oversees the roadworthiness of vehicles; the price management system that keeps petrol prices stable; and so on. All of these things benefit the trucker, and none of them have to do with gas and tag fees.



> *Your second point is not an issue. Different vehicles pay different tag rates. I am not saying that the system now is perfect by any means. I am proposing that an alternate system could be established which would be more fair than simple income taxation. If big trucks are not paying proportionatly enough now, that should adjusted.
> *




If you're going to make 1,001 small adjustments to the system to get back essentially to where you started, I fail to see the point of making 1,001 small adjustments.



> *Fine, and if you support this arbitrary judgement choice, you do not have a moral basis for being opposed to other people making their own arbitrary judgements as well.  And if those people choose to tax SF, then SF may become taxed. *




Only someone who had conflated moral worth with material wealth could assume that the only basis for decisionmaking was via economics.


----------



## Axiomatic Unicorn (Apr 29, 2002)

> And there's nothing wrong with that. "Infrastructure", even from the circumscribed point of view of the trucker, is more than just roads. It's the judicial and legal system that enforces road safety laws and keeps crime down; the hospital system that treats road accident victims; the regulatory system that oversees the roadworthiness of vehicles; the price management system that keeps petrol prices stable; and so on. All of these things benefit the trucker, and none of them have to do with gas and tag fees.




Now we are getting away from the point again.

Others also benefit from these things.  So they are not meaningful to the point.  

None of the above establishes that the productive should be saddled with the burden.



> If you're going to make 1,001 small adjustments to the system to get back essentially to where you started, I fail to see the point of making 1,001 small adjustments.




We are debating a specific example wherein it is approriate for one group to pay more for a specific cost.  The fact that I agree with this concept does not lead to the conclusion that a just system would be the same as where we started.

You are expanding this example, which I did not create, to cover the entire system.  That is faulty.



> Only someone who had conflated moral worth with material wealth could assume that the only basis for decisionmaking was via economics.




This is an over generalization.  We are discussing the specific topic of taxation.  Taxation is about material value, so any moral judgements use to establish tax schemes will require an association between moral worth and material value.

It is my position that the two SHOULD be separated as much as possible.


----------



## jasper (Apr 29, 2002)

Flat income tax on every one. is good.
Excluding my state tax I estimate from one pay slips 18.44  %  Now if you would drop one deduction which caused a RETURN not refund. They over charge me about 1/2 K.  
With a flat tax no deductions what so ever.  At 10 % I would be able to spend/save additional 8.44 %
At 15% spend save 3.44 % and I middle class american. 
Now if you go with a max 10% fed and 5% state income tax I would save /spend all total 7.29% 

Now in college I was below the scale under 10K a year but I still did not get all I made back. 
But at both time i used the so of the same services road, police, publice utilites.

However I got extra income as a student food stamps, and pell grants, so my income was effective higher. Since it is untax income/benefit. Even when I got out of school I still receive food stamps until I got a good paying job.
Now I got about $200 in free food a month so I had $200 free money to spend on gas , bills etc. 

Consumer tax or national sales taxs . Why not. 1% max by law (read the constitution gets change to have 1% sales tax and no more) {interesting one of my history friends notes the income tax amendment was debated to have a 1% max but it was drop because the congress did not think it would ever go that high}.
I currently paying 9% sales tax. The food stamp program pays no sales tax so it will no be affect.

charing BIG business more. More tariffs etc.   Always gets passed to the consumer soon or later.
Just as reagan go into office the gov't increase the tariff on Japanesse autos., starting the next car year.
gee. Ford Chysler Lee Ianchoo choo.vechiles all increase their price about the same  as the tariff. Two years later the japanese had to increase their prices as their profit line was gone.  This was also the time the car rebates came into effect.

Yes cut the income tax to 10% for everyone. This will cause alot of headaches for HR block but who cares.


----------



## hong (Apr 29, 2002)

Axiomatic Unicorn said:
			
		

> *
> None of the above establishes that the productive should be saddled with the burden.
> *




Until such a time as "productive" can be reliably separated from "wealthy", your point is irrelevant to the real world.



> *
> We are debating a specific example wherein it is approriate for one group to pay more for a specific cost. The fact that I agree with this concept does not lead to the conclusion that a just system would be the same as where we started.
> 
> You are expanding this example, which I did not create, to cover the entire system. That is faulty.
> *





I have no idea what on earth you're referring to. Are you talking about 1) the example of trucks; 2) the taxing of science fiction; 3) NASA funding in general; or what? And what is this "system" thingy, and what are you agreeing to?

Ponderous language can be used for two purposes: to illuminate, or to obfuscate. Since it's manifestly failed to illuminate, I have to conclude that it's being used to obfuscate.



> *
> This is an over generalization.  We are discussing the specific topic of taxation.  *




I'm not the one going around making facile statements like



> Fine, and if you support this arbitrary judgement choice, you do not have a moral basis for being opposed to other people making their own arbitrary judgements as well. And if those people choose to tax SF, then SF may become taxed.




There may exist reasons to tax SF, and there may also exist reasons not to tax it. These reasons have nothing to do with economics; or at the very least, economics gives little guidance as to which decision is best. Only someone who had conflated moral worth with material wealth could conclude that these reasons were therefore "arbitrary".



> *
> Taxation is about material value, so any moral judgements use to establish tax schemes will require an association between moral worth and material value.
> 
> It is my position that the two SHOULD be separated as much as possible. *




I'm not sure what your position is.


----------



## jasper (Apr 29, 2002)

nasa and government research.
In college many moons ago I did a speech on why space should be fund more.
I took the following approach.  if you bought stock in the various companies in the 60 which played in space research.
For every penny stock then you would have 113 pennys now.  

What should happen. If uncle Sam and big smarty u have a science project, big smarty u discover  cure for acne. Then Uncle sam should get orignail amount plus some  for about 5 years.

If uncle sam helps private companies, then same amount of money from the company.


----------



## hong (Apr 29, 2002)

jasper said:
			
		

> *Flat income tax on every one. is good.
> 
> (snip rambling monologue)
> 
> Yes cut the income tax to 10% for everyone. This will cause alot of headaches for HR block but who cares. *




I agree. If posts like this are the result of a progressive tax system, then going to a flat tax rate can only be a Good Thing.


----------



## Zappo (Apr 29, 2002)

Hmm, look at what happened overnight. I repeatedly tried to figure out the logic behind unexplained and fragmentary arguments and the only thing I got from it are repeated "You are wrong" sentences and assorted accuses of misrepresentation.

Shard, if you had read the whole thread, you would have noticed that I have been perfectly polite, despite the fact that the very first response I got was "A claim I heard many times. Funny thing, nobody is ever able to support it".

Then I got told (over and over again!) that I was deliberately misrepresenting AU's points, without even getting an explanation of how I was misrepresenting them! I don't like getting accused of things I have not done, and I hate it when someone tries to use it to attack my credibility.

I was interested in hearing other points of view on the subject, and debating them, but the answers I got are just a few steps from personal attacks - attempts to undermine my credibility.

Further debate would be useless. I'm not going to waste more time. I'm sure this will be taken by some as a proof of guilt, but I frankly don't care any more.


----------



## Henry (Apr 29, 2002)

Jasper:

I agree myself; however, the only problem you run into is a MASSIVE government deficit (To the tune of about several billion dollars) while the system readjusts itself. If we had a flat income of 15% (or even 20%) then all politicians and government programs would scream bloody murder. Many worthy institutions would be slashed to the bone as various politicians would hang on tooth and nail to their pet projects, and lobby groups would be working triple-time to save what they could.

In other words, I am a firm beleiver that such a thing, long-term, would be good. But can we afford the multi-year bloodbath that would ensue? 

Since I'm drifting too far afield here, I'll quit. I know that this is one of those "hot issues" so I'll leave the rest of my thoughts here. But I am fascinated that not once have "fightin' words" been spoken.


----------



## Axiomatic Unicorn (Apr 29, 2002)

> Until such a time as "productive" can be reliably separated from "wealthy", your point is irrelevant to the real world.




Many wealthy people are retired or capable of sheltering what income they do have.  So the two are separated by the income tax system.

But, if you prefer to exchange the word wealthy for productive, go ahead.



> I have no idea what on earth you're referring to. Are you talking about 1) the example of trucks; 2) the taxing of science fiction; 3) NASA funding in general; or what? And what is this "system" thingy, and what are you agreeing to?
> 
> Ponderous language can be used for two purposes: to illuminate, or to obfuscate. Since it's manifestly failed to illuminate, I have to conclude that it's being used to obfuscate.




Ponderous language?

How about, changing the subject is a standard method for avoiding a response.



> I'm not the one going around making facile statements like




Interesting that this debate has remained civil until you joined in with absurd insults.  

Not to mention that calling my statement "facile" without taking any effort to establish the slightest evidenced of the truth of the statment actually meets the defintion of the word facile.



> There may exist reasons to tax SF, and there may also exist reasons not to tax it. These reasons have nothing to do with economics; or at the very least, economics gives little guidance as to which decision is best. Only someone who had conflated moral worth with material wealth could conclude that these reasons were therefore "arbitrary".




from dictionary.com

ar·bi·trar·y  
adj. 

2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference: The diet imposes overall calorie limits, but daily menus are arbitrary. 

I fail to see how your statement could lead one to believe that the choice is anything other than arbitrary.


Hong, may I simply request that you attempt to remain civil?


----------



## hong (Apr 29, 2002)

Axiomatic Unicorn said:
			
		

> *
> Many wealthy people are retired or capable of sheltering what income they do have. So the two are separated by the income tax system. *




Exactly. And this would in no way be changed by a flat tax regime, so in effect such a tax would be hitting wealthy people _less_ than poorer people.

Furthermore, note that in the context of arguing about income tax regimes, retirees (wealth-rich but income-poor) are a moot point.



> *
> But, if you prefer to exchange the word wealthy for productive, go ahead.*




Again, what, exactly, is your point?



> *
> Ponderous language?
> 
> How about, changing the subject is a standard method for avoiding a response.
> *




So don't do it, then.



> *
> from dictionary.com
> 
> ar·bi·trar·y
> ...





Whee, dictionary wars! I'm surprised it took this long for the thread to slip into the realms of meta-arguments.

From the Oxford English Dictionary (www.oed.com)

A. adj.

    1. To be decided by one's liking; dependent upon will or pleasure; at the discretion or option of any one. Obs. in general use. 
    2. Law. Relating to, or dependent on, the discretion of an arbiter, arbitrator, or other legally-recognized authority; discretionary, not fixed. 
    3. Derived from mere opinion or preference; not based on the nature of things; hence, capricious, uncertain, varying. 
    4. Unrestrained in the exercise of will; of uncontrolled power or authority, absolute; hence, despotic, tyrannical. 
    5. Printing. arbitrary character: a character used to supplement the letters and accents which constitute an ordinary fount of type. 

I'm sure you can check the connotations for yourself. (You can look up "connotation" in www.dictionary.com too, if you like.) 



> *
> Hong, may I simply request that you attempt to remain civil? *




You haven't seen me being uncivil.


----------



## Axiomatic Unicorn (Apr 29, 2002)

Zappo said:
			
		

> *Hmm, look at what happened overnight. I repeatedly tried to figure out the logic behind unexplained and fragmentary arguments and the only thing I got from it are repeated "You are wrong" sentences and assorted accuses of misrepresentation.
> 
> Shard, if you had read the whole thread, you would have noticed that I have been perfectly polite, despite the fact that the very first response I got was "A claim I heard many times. Funny thing, nobody is ever able to support it".
> 
> ...




Zappo,

I apologize if you feel I was attacking your credibility.  That was not my intent or thought.  I mean no personal attack of any sort.

I simply felt that you were extrapolating my specific comments to imply much broader conclusions that I do not adhere to.  

I agree that the debate quickly becomes useless.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Apr 29, 2002)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> *
> 
> You know, it's nice to think that NASA's problems are because of their funding issues.  But you're lying to yourself if you think that is the cause.  Money had nothing to do with NASA's failure to convert american measurement units to metric units.  Money had nothing to do with their failure to account for time zone changes between monitoring stations.  Those were two of the major mistakes made in the last 5 years, costing BILLIONS of dollars from the NASA budget.  The people who made those mistakes were not underpaid.  The individual salaries of NASA folks are not low, and the complaint about money is always about funding additional missions, not increasing salaries to attract more intelligent employees.
> 
> ...




I'm not sure how you're disagreeing with me. If you had read my posts carefully, you'd see that my whole point was that NASA _can't_ fly missions based on scientific merit. It has to answer to Congress more stringently than many agencies, including, and perhaps especially, the military. It has to act more like a government agency than a scientific braintrust because it is somehow perceived as less necessary. The gist of what I'm saying is that NASA should be funded, and should be a government agency, because its mission as an agency will ultimately bear directly upon national security, even more than it does now. Just as we wouldn't turn the military over to mercenaries, we shouldn't turn NASA over to the private sector.

The military is a good counterargument to your assertion about privatizing NASA. The US military has to answer to Congress, and is tax funded. Yet it's the most powerful military on Earth. The point is that a government agency, properly funded, and given the ability to choose what it needs to fulfill its mission statement, can excel at what it does.

Regarding whether the recent disasters NASA has had with its missions recently, particularly the Mars missions, had anything to do with funding - of course they did. I won't defend the stupidity of the metric/English conversion. But, an agency that is underfunded, understaffed, flies more missions than it can handle in order to maintain its funding, is subjected to misinformed public scrutiny, and is becoming increasingly marginalized by public myopia, cannot be expected to excel. Privatizing the space program will most likely result in even less esploration of space and fewer scientific missions - humanity's forays into space will be relegated to putting up communications satellites, and not much else. It's getting that way now, and it hasn't been privatized. What would prompt the private sector to go into space in a big way?


----------

