[OT] Sci-Fi Tax ?!

[hong]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.