Slashdot Mirror
Los Angeles County To Tax Outer Space
paladino writes: "The LA County Tax Collectors office wants to collect property taxes from Huges Electronics for the value of their satellites orbiting the earth. They say 'satellites are no different from other movable personal property that he has authority to tax.'" Perhaps LA will need to open a lot for satellites confiscated for non-payment, too. See also The Man Who Owned the Moon by Robert A. Heinlein. Update: 07/11 02:02 PM by J : OK, OK, it's The Man Who Sold the Moon - blame me for this one. Timothy foolishly trusted my brain. /me runs memtest86 on his cranium
Sounds like property tax, based on holdings. Get over it, this is normal.
Actually it's more often used to justify tax cuts, arguing that the trickle-down effects of a tax cut putting more money into circulation will result in a larger economy and hence the government will actually collect more money in taxes at the lower tax rate.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Space tourism isn't going to take off period until it approaches the cost of a vacation to anywhere else via airplane, and people seem perfectly happy to pay the existing taxes on that.
However, if they treat space as an exception...
He actually is most likely gearing up for some kind of election soon. He needs 1) air time and publicity, and 2) a plan to benefit the people.. tax those rich corporations until we run them out of town to benefit the schools.
hawk
>into LA because of the taxes
Give the man a cigar. He just figured out the economics of a minimum wage increase, which works precisely this way.
Every time Congress increases the minimum wavge, one side of the aisle gets up and shouts that massive job loss will occur, while the other shouts that nothing will happen. Immediately after the increase, someone from the second side (Usually Ted Kennedy) loudly pronounces that there has been no job loss. Six months to a year later, though, the employment level has indead dropped. *exisiting* minimum wage employees are rarely fired after an increase, as their training costs hyave already been born. On the ohter hand, some of the jobs go unfilled when emptied, and others are never created.
THis is the aexact same thing. Once a firm has incurred sunk costs, you can tax it up to about that amount, and it stays put. But if you do this, no firm in its right mind will open a plant in your area.
hawk, wearing his econ professor hat
>proof.
Read almost any labor economics journal, almost any issue
The wage elasticity of labordemand is well known. If memory serves, it's about -.15 in the U.S.
Specifically, see the debunking in the last issue of American Economic Review of last year, which manages to remain polite while pointing out the flaws/sloppieness/incompetence in the kruger/card study claiming that increasing the minimum wage in New Jersy increased fastfood employment. It's just not an issue that's in dispute among serious economists.
>OTOH, I have seen school teachers living on welfare, because their
>wage puts them so far below the poverty level. (And no, they didn't
>have cadillacs
>inherited [but I'm not sure].)
Underpaid or not, teachers are *nowhere* near the minimum wage . .
>So the evidence that I've seen indicates the a wage level that is too
>low increases the need for welfare.
The problem here is the assum[ption that the job will still exist with a higher minimum wage (or that other jobs would still increase if the wage were forced upwards). In the long term, the answer is "no, the employment level drops," which puts more people on welfare.
>But the real point is, if the minimum wage is so low that one can't
>live on it, even when being frugal, then it is unjust.
The problem is that an employer just plain can't pay $10/hr for a job that only produces $5/hr.
Just/unjust doesn't change the productivity of the position. A solution that *doesn't* wipe out the jobs would be for someone other than the employer (probably the government) to supplement the wage--but this gets ugly, fast.
Also, in general, people don't stay at the minimum wage very long. It'sgenerally a first/reentry/teenager job, though there are exceptions. However, the pool of people who make the minimum wage in the long term is very, very, small compared to the labor force.
hawk
>Actually the experience of the UK and France when minimum wage laws
>were introduced was that unemployment fell.
THere were a *lot* of other things going on a that time. Attributing a
causal relation with a one-time change at that point in history is
just plain reckless . . .
>The mechanism is direct and acknowledged by the right when the
subject
>of the argument are the super-rich. The super rich (aka the 'wealth
>creators') the argument goes will respond to tax cuts by working
>harder, earning more money. The increasingly enriched pleutocracy
will
>then spend more money creating demand for 'stuff'. It is called the
>trickle down theory, to improve the lot of those at the bootm of
>society you have to give more gravy to those at the top and let it
>trickle down to the poor.
That's not how trickle down is supposed to help. The theory is that
instead of consuming, folks at this level invest, creating greater
demand for labor and higher wages.
This certainly happens, but there is an empirical question as to
whether the net gain for the lower end is more or less than the amount
given to hte upper. Also, this generally isn't in the context of
"giving" money to the rich, but in that of not taking enough. There is
certainly a tax rate that is counter productive (would *you* work with
a 100% income tax? How about 99%?), but I've ne er seen a serious
attempt at locating that rate. Democrats always insist we're below
that rate, Republicans insist we're above it, and a few of us get
ignored while hollering from the sidelines that it should be measured
. . . However, I'm certainly more receptive to the notion that
lowering tax rates that were high enough to choke off economic
activity will help the poor than the notion that in an efficient
economy lowering tax rates on the rich will help the poor (although
it's indisputable that there is *some* gain to the poor, I doubt that
it's as much help as sending them a government check in the same
amoutn as the
tax cut). Still, I'd be willing to look at hard numbers in either
direction.
>The flaw in the trickle down theory is that for folk in my income
>bracket expenditure is a very weak function of after their after tax
>income. If I make double what I made the year before I do not double
>my expenditure, or anything like it. I spend less than 10% of my
>income.
And what do you do with the rest? Eat it?
trickel-down argument is that the money is invested, causing a net
investment in new capital, increasing the demand for labor. Increased
current consumption is *not* what drives it. And again, it's an
empirical qquestion; there is certainly some gain for the poor, but
the question is whetehr they'd be better off with the untrickled
money.
>Poor folk save very little, if they get more money they spend it. And
>that expands the economy.
yes, they save little, spending all. Which is why trickle down
suggests that they're the wrong ones to give the money
hawk, again poinging out that he is not arguing for trickle down, but
explaining it [but will still doubtless get flamed and misunderstood
:) ]
> inevitably lead to unemployment. I was merely pointing out that the
^^^^^^^^^^
> facts disprove your assertion, a causal connection was superfluous.
I said nothing of the sort. I said that increasing the minimum wage increases unemployment, which has been born out by every study ever conducted other than a couple of discredited cranks.
The "facts" that you point out are analogous to claiming that the ascent of an airplan disproves an assertion of gravity. There's something else happening at the same time that has a stronger effect.
> As for what the right wing argument is, I have not heard the
> 'investment' theory of trickle down hald as often as the consumption theory.
There is no consumption theory. When you here it as a consumption issue, it's either coming from someone who didn't understand the issue but latched onto the predicted result, or a journalist misstating something that he didn't understand.
>But in any case the investment theory is pretty hard to
>sustain. Capital is not a scarce resource. Up until 6 months ago it
>was possible to get pretty much unlimited funds for any Internet
>related project.
whoops. I was taking you seriously until this point; I guess you were just trolling. Just in case you took anyone in, the money that recklessly went into internet startups would have been invested in something else. That there were more dollars foolishly trying to buy *anything* related to the internet than there were available feasible projects in no way suggests that capital is not scarce.
> The availability of investment funds is set by the relative level of
> interest rates, that is why no serious economist would endorse the
> trickle down 'investment' theory.
You *really* need to learn some economics before making claims about what reasonable economists endorse. You seem to be hand-picking bits and pieces of various notions to come up with a package you like. For example, you took the poor spending money as driving the economy straight out of old keynsianism--which holds the savings/investment rate constant, and has the interest rate determined by this amount. Investment returns driving investment is a classical notion (and much more reasonable; there really aren't many kenesians left, but there are plenty of new keynesians and neo keynsians).
Noone who doesn't understand the mechanism by which lower tax rates lead to greater investment and employment will pass his qualifying exams in graduate school. Anyone *rejecting* the notion, other than because the *amount* of benefit to the poor is lest than the foregone revenues, is a crank, not a serious economist. Similarly, anyone *endorsing* it as a policy measure, other than on the grounds that the measured benefit is less than the cost, is similarly a crank.
>If the folk claiming that raising the minimum wage hurts the poor were
>notable champions of the poor on other issues their argument might be
>more credible.
Nonsense. A person's politics and normative economics have absolutely nothing to do with the validity of their positive economics, any more than Schockleys wierd views on race have anything to do with whether the transistor works. All economicists, save a couple of cranks, acknowledge that (outside some theorized pathological cases that have never been demonstrated) an increased minimum wage decreases employment. Furthermore, when the elasticity has been measured, it has been found that generally the *total* wage paid drops slightly. On the other hand, those receving the higher wage are indeed better off. The size of the tradeoff is a postive issue, beyond politics and values. Whether or not this makes the higher wage a better idea is a normative economic issue, for which economists have no claim to better answers than anyone else.
>>increases unemployment, which has been born out by every study ever
>>conducted other than a couple of discredited cranks.
>Cite a single study that is not from a right wing propaganda outfit.
I did. If you think the AER is a right wing propoganda outfit, you seem to have defined right wing as, "anyone not advocagting all my views."
>You have a lot of opinions about what economics professors think. It
>is a pity you don't appear to ever have listened to one.
Gee, you're right. Penn State appointed me as an economics professor due to my complete ignorance of the field . . .
>Clearly there is a level at which a higher minimum wage will create
>unemployment, just as there is a level at which higher taxes will
>reduce the total tax revenues. The evidence suggests that none of the
>Western economies are currently anywhere near either situation, with
>the possible exception of some of the Nordic countries.
And the British economy before Thatcher. And possibly the American economy before the Carter tax cut.
>Nonsense. A person's politics and normative economics have absolutely
>nothing to do with the validity of their positive economics,
>A pretty naive view. Economics is not value blind as some proponents
>claim.
When it is not, it fails. Economics can suggest what the choices are, not the correct choice.
Before you can evaluate economic outcomes you have to define
>what your economic goals are.
Absolute nonsense. This is no more true than to say that to evaluate aerodynamic outcomes one must choose whetehr he wants to build a helicopter or an airplane. While the researcher's interest certainly affects *what* he studies, he is a poor scientist if it affects his results.
>That is an intrinsically political
>process and anyone who claims otherwise is either a fool or a liar.
Wow, the pre-emptive ad hominem. That aside, it is only intrinsically political in marxist analysis.
There's really no point continuing this. You seem to have decided that anyone who has views contrary to yours is a right wing hack, fool, or liar . . .
hawk
Actually, LA is one of the few areas in California that has its own power plants and isn't going to be too affected by the power "shortage" throughout the state. In fact, the city's currently selling excess power to the state.
--
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --H.L. Mencken
The real question is: How will this get resolved?
Legally speaking, who can say?
Practically speaking, DirecTV gives LA county the finger and moves to Austin or some other municipality that doesn't make a habit of shitting where it eats.
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
I don't think anyone is arguing that LA County hasn't got the right to try to tax anything it likes. But just because they can doesn't make it a good idea. According to the County Assessors office, the average property tax levy in LA County is 1.25% of the value of the property. That might not sound like much, but with 8 satellites valued at $100,000,000.00 each, that's an additional $10,000,000.00 a year in taxes that no other satellite company in the country has to pay. Certainly, their competitors, Dish Network/Echostar won't have to pay it - they're headquartered in Colorado. Why on earth wouldn't they move?
Trust me, Hughes isn't going to relocate a huge amount of employees and equipment just because of the added taxes on these satellites.
You're right - they'll probably just move the equipment and a few employees. The rest will be left wondering what the hell happened.
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
I understand and appreciate taxes on profits, and can see how taxes on properties in a municipality makes sense (different levels of government getting their cut), but taxes on assets? Do they tax each companies vehicles & computers?
This just sounds bizarre if they're trying to say that satellites are property in the same sense as a plot of land on Main Street.
It's so very Douglas Adams-esque.
"And so, in early 21st century, the primative earthlings decided to leave their little ball of mud and venture into outer space - mostly for tax reasons."
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
W
-------------------
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
From http://dailynews.yahoo.com/htx/nm/20010710/tc/life _satellites_dc_1.html. This actually was on Reuters a few hours before the slashdot post.
Tuesday July 10 7:46 PM ET
L.A. May Be Shot Down in Bid to Tax Satellites
By Dan Whitcomb
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Los Angeles officials seeking to impose property taxes on space satellites were brought back down to Earth on Tuesday when a state board moved toward declaring satellites beyond the reach of even the tax collector.
But Los Angeles County Assessor Rick Auerbach said he was not yet ready to scrap the proposed tax and would consider a court challenge if he finds that the California State Board of Equalization has circumvented state or federal law.
It was Auerbach who determined that eight communications satellites owned by Hughes Electronics Corp.(NYSE:GMH - news) and currently in geostationary orbit 22,300 miles over Earth's equator were taxable as movable property that was currently out of state, similar to construction equipment.
That decision prompted county officials to consider an assessment on the communications satellites, which are each worth up to $100 million new.
But State Board of Equalization members appeared to short circuit that plan on Tuesday when they voted 5-0 to ``fast track'' a rule that satellites cannot be taxed, even though Hughes, a unit of GM (NYSE:GM - news), is based in Los Angeles.
The decision came after presentations by Hughes and Auerbach and directs the board's staff to draft a rule declaring the satellites nontaxable. Board members would vote on that proposed rule in the coming months.
George Jamison, a Hughes vice president, said the firm was relieved and pleased by what he called the ``good common sense'' of the board and said they considered the proposed tax a very bad idea from the start.
HUGHES: TAX IS 'LUDICROUS'
``It's ludicrous, absolutely,'' Jamison said. ``It's the type of issue, quite frankly, that causes the company to consider relocating its base of operations to a more business-friendly environment.''
The satellites are not launched from California, do not pass over California while in orbit and will never return to the state, instead becoming space junk, he said.
``We think the ruling is important,'' Jamison said. ``These spacecraft are not be in the state of California, have never been in the state of California during their useful lives and will never be in the state of California in the future.''
Auerbach conceded that the board members ``have made up their mind already that the property is not taxable,'' but said the issue was not necessarily dead because he had researched the case and found legal opinions supporting his position.
``I'll have to see what basis they have for the rule,'' Auerbach said. ``If I believe it's improper (under the) U.S. Constitution and and state statutes my option is to go to Superior Court.''
``I have to keep an open mind,'' Auerbach said. ``Based on the opinions I have I think it still looks taxable.''
Auerbach insisted that he was not pushing for a tax on the satellites but was simply doing his job and trying to determine whether they should be taxed.
``I'm neutral on the whole thing,'' he said. ``My job is to make sure all property that's taxable gets assessed and I'm going to follow the law. If the law says its not taxable it's not taxable. If it is taxable I will assess it.''
Interesting. See the post from Ohio above. I also note that many people from New York seem to believe that no place else is civilized. A person I knew from Mass. had a similar idea, but expressed it more graciously.
Perhaps all places tend to be provincial.
Including this one.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I've seen this asserted many times. I don't think I've ever seen any proof.
... well, one had a 15-20 year old cad that I think she inherited [but I'm not sure].)
OTOH, I have seen school teachers living on welfare, because their wage puts them so far below the poverty level. (And no, they didn't have cadillacs
So the evidence that I've seen indicates the a wage level that is too low increases the need for welfare. Of course, part of the problem is that the cost of living in some areas is quite different from the cost of living in others, so if there is a standard level for the entire state, some will be doing grossly worse than others. But this is a really disgraceful false economy.
Probably the reason in the particular instance of teachers is that the expectation is that they won't need wages, because their husband will pick up the slack. So why not take advantage. Add in the problems with getting a wage increase through the political system, and you have a formula for disaster.
But the real point is, if the minimum wage is so low that one can't live on it, even when being frugal, then it is unjust. And it increases the need for welfare. And unless it fits some basic need, as teaching does, it drives all competent people out of the job (and most incompetent ones). Currenly in the area where I live people are occasionally found to be living 20 to the apartment in order to make the rent. But when you force people to live like that, they will usually try to find an exit, be it legal or illegal.
It is a complex problem, and I don't know of any simple answers. But it annoys me when people try to pretend that the problem doesn't exist. And most simple answers just seem to make the problem worse.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
L.A. needs that tax revenue to buy batteries.
--
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Maybe Hughes should move their legal base of operations *to the satellite*.
I mean, is it that much different than having a company who's legal head office is a post office box in the Cayman Islands?
What they could save in taxes could probably pay for sending a guy up there once in a while to satisfy any legal requirements.
(And, since it was my idea, *I* should get to be that guy...)
Cheers,
Jim
MMDC Mobile Media
-- My Weblog.
... just attach a "satallite boot" to it!
(this idea is actually from my wife, not me)
(like most of my better ideas)
(and most of my better jokes for that matter)
The next site to slashdot will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and start slashdotting it early!
And it's not _just_ DirecTV - that's just a little of the Hughes presence in El Segundo. Hughes sits on about a square mile of real estate there, and their tax bills - and those of their highly-paid engineers - are certainly not insigifigant for LA.
Hughes should just pull up stakes and move to some friendly state (like Texas - "Hey, we gotta Prez, for a couple years.") or maybe the Research Triangle, like Boeing just got fed up with WA and announced moving to Chicago. That would serve this particular pol bastard right. Let him be known as the (one-term) Assessor who chased Hughes off. This is one of the worst over-reachings ever.
He's just gotten laughed out of the CA State Board of Equalization (which is usually not unsympathetic to taxing entities). Later, he will get foreclosed in State and Federal courts. Guess what, the taxpayors in LA will pay for his folly. They should recall this idiot!
This issue is HUGE, to say the least. If this is true, and LA is indeed able to collect I see several things falling out from this:
1) Satellite companies remove themselves from California, and every other state which taxes "moveable personal property" to avoid the taxes.
and
2) the prices for directTV, and other digital cable services go THROUGH THE ROOF. Up until now, the costs they have been recouping have been from the LAUNCH of the satellite, if they have to pay yearly property taxes on it, that's an extra couple hundred million dollars we're talking about.
California - This is a BAD IDEA. It could cripple more companies than you think. Unless of course they're thinking of selectively enforcing the rule, which is even worse.....
just my $.02
hmmmm?
I'm sure tons aerospace companys are now BEGGING for the chance to move there now. Especially with the economic uncertainty present in this country.
Next thing you know they're gonna start taxing airplanes that fly through their airspace, satelites that fly through their orbit, and vehicles that drive on LA roads who's owner resides in a different location.
Idiocy.
This is one question to answer, and its answer is yes. While a number of early treaties have determined that no one owns space (the so-called Open Skies proposals, which the USSR originally rejected but then accepted), any jurisdiction may levy taxes upon anyone within its jurisdiction, whether they (only) work in it or (only) live in it; as Hughes "lives" in LA, LA can tax them for everything they own.
The real question is: How will this get resolved? Does the U.S. Congress have the authority to regulate taxes on space-commerce (as they have claimed the authority to do so regarding e-commerce, namely, saying there is no tax)? It would be great if they did, because then a single bill, which would be almost certainly passed, would stop this assessor's orgiastic phantasies. If Congress does not have such authority (over taxes which may be imposed by U.S. states, not foreign powers), then it would be up to the Supreme Court to decide. As the Constitution says nothing about this (except perhaps the occational phrase dealing with the Frontier), it would be a matter of Their Inexplicable Will, which is not nearly so easily bought off to purposes of good by Hughes as is that of the Congress.
~~~~~~
under-paid karma whore
Basically, if the LA tax goons push too hard, they'll just lose, and make themselves look stupid as opposed to just greedy.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I thought it was funny. I'm from Ohio by the way in case you were curious. I visit California for business. The weather is great, the land is some of the most beautiful that this country has to offer. However, the politics and the reasoning of many people who live there are unfathomable to me, os I'd rather live in boring old Ohio.
Hughes has satalites worth billions of dollars. Their profit margins aren't that high, if you tax their satalites, then they won't be competative with companies elsewhere which don't pay the taxes. In the short run relocation would be extremely expensive, not to mention very difficult on it's employees, but it may be less expensive than the taxes in the long run. Add to this the problems California is having with their messed up utilities industry, and Hughes may need to consider a new home.
I bet LA would back down if Huges threatened to close all operations there. Facing the taxpayers come election time just isn't worth it.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
...permanently, by developing a "Smart Tag" that will allow us, by clicking on a person's name, to reach through our computer screens, and slap the living hell out of that moron after he or she comes up with lovely new "revenue-generating" ideas like this tax.
I would then gladly sign up for a Passport account....
In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
Not sure what the tax rate is in LA, but if it's like 5%, then the annual tax on eight satellites would be like $40M/year.
Sounds like a good reason to load up the truck and move out of Beverly.
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.
No. First of all, you don't own all the air over your head. We're spinning on a ball moving through space so aforementioned area is constantly changing hands by thant analogy.
Second of all, it's a fair-but-not-fair tax. A lot of the complication comes from the way the article was touted - it's not the satellite being taxed, it's the business IN THE CITY that uses the satellites to generate revenue. They take money from everyone that makes it. You should be used to it by now.
And, in a last-ditch attempt to get a +1 Funny, California taxes satellites because they don't see them too well. Minnesota faces a more serious problem from them as they reside approximately 12 centimeters below the orbit of nearby satellites. They're too busy ducking to legislate. Thank you, come again.
"I'm not even supposed to BE here today!"
http://www.publicenemy.com/lyrics/lyrics/911-is-a- joke.php
Maybe I'm confused from reading the article, but I dont think they are trying to Tax these things cause they are flying over Califonia "Airspace". That is really quite irrelevant. The problem is these satellites are owned by people in LA
I think the proper way to deal with this is look at these sattelites like an Offshore Rig or something. If I set up a webserver that ran an online gambling site in the middle of the ocean, but I collected the earnings while living in LA, could they tax me on that? If so, tax the satellites, as they are providing service to LA citizens. If they couldnt tax me on a boat out in the ocean, then they shouldnt tax on a satellite in space.
Forget about the lot for storage of confiscated orbital property. Lets talk about the launch vehicle that LA is going to build to so they can get up there and impound them with in the first place.
Ascii artist &
Perhaps Hughes should threaten to actually put the satellites in the state of California. From orbit. At high speed...
I always wanted a seafront property in Arizona anyway :)
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
Sorry, Tim. The Heinlein novel is "The Man Who Sold the Moon." [Insert standard bitching about /. editors and their innaccuacies here]
"TMWSTM" is a great story. It's all about a buisnessman staging a massive ad campaign to get people interested in moon colonization. Probably the only way we will ever get people to pony up the dough to live up there.
Carousel is a lie!
We are most sorry that we cannot afford to pay the taxes that you request from our current liquid assets. However, we do believe that the current value of one of our satellites will be enough to pay our debt to you. We will be delivering it to city hall as soon as we make some minor adjustments to our targeti.. err .. I mean delivery system.
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
Karma whorin' since 1999
I'm not aware of any property taxes that are assessed on corporate property such as PCs (though certainly real estate is taxed), but I also claim no particular expertise in this area.
"Biped! Good cranial development. Evidently considerable human ancestry."
Better warn NASA not to launch any pieces of the Space Station from anywhere in California -- otherwise they might start charging NASA and everyone on board with their Space-Tax.
-- russ
Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
Here's a question.
If a Satellite is 'dead' (as in a condition where the Satellites are out of fuel as stated in the end of an article) Is the person who owns them still required to pay taxes on them as one would have to on undeveloped or unused real estate?
I can see where a satellite thought that is active and being used could be considered as a business asset, and therefore be allowed to be taxed. I have to wonder though what the tax for a multi-million dollar earth-orbiting device is? Do they really have something in their books that describes this kind of item? Also, how many other people have satellites who they are going after, or is it just one guy.
Finally, if I were able to build a satellite out of spare parts, like one of the Ham Radio satellites and a couple of my friends interested in rocketry built me a rocket, what kind of taxes would my satellite be applicable to? It's interesting since this area is not usually considered, as outerspace is usually considered 'beyond jurisdiction'. But, does that mean that laws still do not apply, and if someone hacks into my satellite and takes over it, am I out of luck in that case if laws don't apply?
I'm guessing that even though it's kinda weird, that yes, in fact this is legal, however it's going to have to be decided what's really owed, and how something like this is taxed...
[Something witty and intelligent should have appeared here.]
[Something witty and intelligent should have appeared here.]
{Traicovn}
Property taxes are generally justified as payment for public services provided to residents (police, trash collection, public schools, etc.). The government obviously has no business collecting property taxes, then, on property I own in Norway.
Similarly, what the hell kind of services does the County of Los Angeles provide in outer space? There sure ain't no curb-side (satellite-side?) recycling...
Logically, if they are taxing outer space, shouldn't I own the small strip of space directly above my house?
That should have been "ensure".
Doh, I feel illiterate.
-Rob
...wait until Microsoft demands an auditor be sent out to the satellites to insure full licence compliance.
-Rob
Actually the experience of the UK and France when minimum wage laws were introduced was that unemployment fell.
The mechanism is direct and acknowledged by the right when the subject of the argument are the super-rich. The super rich (aka the 'wealth creators') the argument goes will respond to tax cuts by working harder, earning more money. The increasingly enriched pleutocracy will then spend more money creating demand for 'stuff'. It is called the trickle down theory, to improve the lot of those at the bootm of society you have to give more gravy to those at the top and let it trickle down to the poor.
The flaw in the trickle down theory is that for folk in my income bracket expenditure is a very weak function of after their after tax income. If I make double what I made the year before I do not double my expenditure, or anything like it. I spend less than 10% of my income.
Poor folk save very little, if they get more money they spend it. And that expands the economy.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Actually it was you who asserted that raising the minimum wage would inevitably lead to unemployment. I was merely pointing out that the facts disprove your assertion, a causal connection was superfluous.
As for what the right wing argument is, I have not heard the 'investment' theory of trickle down hald as often as the consumption theory. But in any case the investment theory is pretty hard to sustain. Capital is not a scarce resource. Up until 6 months ago it was possible to get pretty much unlimited funds for any Internet related project.
The availability of investment funds is set by the relative level of interest rates, that is why no serious economist would endorse the trickle down 'investment' theory.
If the folk claiming that raising the minimum wage hurts the poor were notable champions of the poor on other issues their argument might be more credible. However the fact is that the folk that make the claim are the same ones who claim that tax cuts for the rich are more important than tax cuts for anyone else.
Given the choice between 4% growth and no tax cut or a 4% tax cut and no growth I will take the growth every time.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Cite a single study that is not from a right wing propaganda outfit.
You have a lot of opinions about what economics professors think. It is a pity you don't appear to ever have listened to one.
Clearly there is a level at which a higher minimum wage will create unemployment, just as there is a level at which higher taxes will reduce the total tax revenues. The evidence suggests that none of the Western economies are currently anywhere near either situation, with the possible exception of some of the Nordic countries.
Nonsense. A person's politics and normative economics have absolutely nothing to do with the validity of their positive economics,
A pretty naive view. Economics is not value blind as some proponents claim. Before you can evaluate economic outcomes you have to define what your economic goals are. That is an intrinsically political process and anyone who claims otherwise is either a fool or a liar.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Is there a satellite repoman or do they just hire a few southcentral gangs to shoot them down if they don't pay?
Sorry, make that: If you are a US citizen or green card holder, you have to pay US income taxes even if you live and work in another country.
I am always amazed at what a far cry from our founding fathers these little tiny, narrow-sighted minds of our legislators are. Which is going to bring more money into L.A.:
a) Satellite taxes which will only be effective ONCE becuase the next all of the companies that have satellites will be moving out (costing jobs, housing, industries that support such companies)
b) Lowering taxes for aerospace companies and encouraging thier growth (and thus building new jobs, raising property values, creating entire enconomies based on the needs of those high-tech companies)
I see quotes in the article like "Worth as much as $100 million each to Hughes Electronics in El Segundo, the satellites could bring in millions of dollars a year in taxes to schools and government." But that is an amazingly childish way of thinking. Sure you will get one round of taxes out of them, and you will look all smart and suave to your voters (Taxes are FOR THE CHILDREN! Think of the schools!), but next year when your high-tech companies have left and you have soaring unemployment and now are getting no revenue from your stupid taxes, then you'll have to ask yourself what good you actually did.
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
Obviously the satellites are also violating peeping-tom statutes within the confines of Los Angeles county. Let's see...one count for each pass--that's gonna be a hefty sentence if they ever manage to apprehend those filthy criminal satellites.
"What is the sound of one belly slapping?"