Bid to Tax Satellites Rejected

Kierthos writes: "This article updates an earlier Slashdot story about the Los Angeles County Assessor's office trying to tax satellites in orbit around the Earth. Short version: no go, the satellites don't get taxed."

Comments

How they would tax international satelites ?

[C0vardeAn0nim0]

like the ones my country has in orbit ? or russia ? or china ?

This would be a major infringment on other countries sovereignity. If LA really needs an extra cash tax it's own inhabitants, not the whole world.

Reminds me of taxing cables

[snatchitup]

Reminds me of the court battle cities actually did win, that would allow them to tax any communications traffic going through cables laid within their jurisdictions. They were actually thinking about taxing per-square foot, as a way to come up with a "sensible" tax assessment, knowing full well they had no idea the value of the commerce flowing in the fiber, and copper.

Killing the Golder Goose, for sure.

Taxation... for what?

[CaptainAlbert]

OK, I know governments can tax whatever they want, whenever they want. But there's usually a reason. For example, property taxes pay for local amenities and police. Vehicle taxes pay for the upkeep of roads and traffic signals, and the building of new ones. Direct taxes such as income tax and corporation tax pay for lots of stuff, mainly public goods such as defence, civil servants' wages, etc.

The other main use of taxation is as a disincentive to some activity or other (such as smoking and drinking, or in the case of fuel taxation, driving).

Why tax satellites? The space they orbit in requires no expenditure to maintain, and there's no reason to try putting people off launching satellites, because it costs many millions of pounds/dollars.

Apart from pure greed, what's the justrification behind such a proposal?

Re:Taxation... for what?

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, I know governments can tax whatever they want, whenever they want.

no, they can't, as this story illustrates.

But there's usually a reason. For example, property taxes pay for local amenities and police. Vehicle taxes pay for the upkeep of roads and traffic signals, and the building of new ones.

"use" taxes build the price of roads into the use of roads and are thus economically efficient (the word "efficient" to an economist means "doesn't have economically harmful side-effects") because they don't "punish" unrelated sectors of the economy. An alternate way of thinking of it is, if roads are not taxed then they seem too cheap and people use them too much.

Direct taxes such as income tax and corporation tax pay for lots of stuff, mainly public goods such as defence, civil servants' wages, etc.

income taxes (corporate tax is largely an income tax) are used to transfer money from people who have it to people who don't, either directly through welfare, or indirectly by rich people paying the national defense bill for poor people. The reason for income taxes is somewhat complex, a mix of "tax where the money is" and the moral and reasonable notion that "we can't tax every piece of infrastructure efficiently, but if we tax income we are pretty sure of focusing on people who are benefitting from the infrastructure"

The other main use of taxation is as a disincentive to some activity or other (such as smoking and drinking, or in the case of fuel taxation, driving).

this may be the moral justification for those taxes, but economically it doesn't work. Demand for drugs and gambling is "inelastic" in that people do not reduce their consumption just because the price goes up. So, high taxes on these things are still efficient because they don't impact the rest of the economy by discouraging consumption. Fuel taxes don't really fall into this category in the long run, except that in the short run your demand for gas is dependent on a large capital purchase you've already committed to.

Why tax satellites? The space they orbit in requires no expenditure to maintain, and there's no reason to try putting people off launching satellites, because it costs many millions of pounds/dollars.

since the rest of your tax analysis was flawed, we wouldn't expect that you would get this part right... this tax is no different than property/excise tax. Property should not be taxed, of course, just income. But some property should not be treated differently than other property, either.

Apart from pure greed, what's the justrification behind such a proposal?

to an economist, "pure greed" is the same motivation behind every wage negotiation, every food purchase, every economic decision. Do you donate to charity? You do it because it makes you feel good, and your pure greed for that feeling makes you turn over a (usually moderate) portion of your wealth. Do you complain about the price of something that you just bought? You bought it because you wanted it more than the money you had, i.e. you thought it was a fair price that improved your property mix. It is only your pure greed that makes you complain.

The flaw here is in thinking that "pure greed" is a bad thing: pure greed is a good thing, that perfectly normal human (and animal) desire to try to enjoy the next few minutes. Greed only irritates you when it is someone else's greed, and your own greed makes us want to allocate their resources: no skin off your nose, eh?

Most of you missed the point

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think they were trying to tax the satellites just because they were occassionally overhead. I believe they were trying to tax the owner of the satellites as a corporation based in L.A. that owned property, regardless of where the property was located.

Now, I don't know where Hughes corporate office is located. If it isn't located in L.A., then the tax assessor had no basis at all to attempt taxation. Their home page has a contact PO box in El Segundo, CA 90245-0956, but it doesn't say if they have even a branch there.

Don't get me wrong. I am glad the tax was shot down. Satellites cost enough already without adding taxes. Got too many taxes already.

Big Consequences

[squaretorus]

The fall out from this type of ruling is going to be felt quite heavily in coming years.

We are currently taxed for driving, flying, building a home, playing with toys, eating anything non-essential and much more. Data is harder to tax, and so for the greater part we are NOT taxed for exchanging data.

Governments tax for two reasons. 1: To pay for the 'stuff' of governing and providing public facilities to the country 2: As a penalty for anti social / environmental behaviours.

As a greater proportion of our wealth is spent 'virtually' a greater portion of our 'real' expenditure will have to be taxed to ensure the books balance.

Personally, I'd rather see fair taxes. Rich people exchange data (in the main) more than poor people. So tax us. Unpopular on /. I think, but if you think about it - would you rather be charged an extra couple of percent for your bandwidth or have propoerty taxes rise AGAIN!??