Slashdot Mirror
Taxing Sci-Fi Products to Fund NASA?
LordNimon writes "According to an article in the Huntsville (AL) Times, Michael Williams, a Republican candidate for Congress, is proposing a 1% tax on any science fiction- or space-related products (e.g. books, toys, and games) and using that money to fund NASA. At first I thought this guy was crazy, considering the administrative nightmare of determining which products should be taxed. But then I realized something - this tax would make those who are most interested in space the primary source of space development funding. Instead of making everyone pay for NASA, those who care most about it also fund it the most. Maybe if the guy didn't work in a supermarket, he'd be taken more seriously."
I read practically nothing but one sort of SF or another, and I'm not even vaguely interested in the space program. So why should *I* be taxed for it??
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Take 1% of Lucas et al's income from the Star Wars movies over the years.
:)
Probably end up about 15X NASA's budget
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
Why not just take a portion of the sales tax used on Science Fiction products and move that towards NASA? Instead of 8.25% sales tax going torwards my state, 7.25% gets to them and 1% gets to NASA?
This could work for all products, 1% of food taxes (junk food, sodas) can go towards the FDA, 1% of medical taxes can go towards hospitals. I think it would be nice, the State and Gov't still get their taxes and we are sure some of it goes to those who might need it.
So..... anything with Velcro on it is taxable?
This guy has a masters (political science) and a bachelor's (business management) degree. Yet he works at the local supermarket? Unless he owns the place the going to college was not worth it for this guy (even then perhaps not).
I think other posters are right when they call this unfair. (Not all sci-fi fans care about NASA, many people would benefit from technology developed by NASA, whether they payed or not).
So if you want to create an incentive, just pass a law making contributions to NASA be tax free and let people contribute as much (or as little) as they want. Maybe NASA could put advertisements in sci-fi products encouraging people to donate (the product manufacturers could then write off some promotional expense or whatever). Maybe theaters could show a brief promotional trailer (put together by NASA) during the trailers in sci-fi movies. Afterall, their doing so could be a TAX DEDUCTIBLE contribution to NASA, even though it doesn't really cost them anything and would likely not anger customers at all.
Maybe this could usher in an era where we see a whole new class of quasi-governmental organizations with tax-exempt status.
I'm not sure this is a good idea, but it is an idea.
MM
--
By including this sig, the copyright holders of this work or collection unreservedly place it in the public domain.
It's only the location of the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. The guy's just trying to funnel taxes to his home district.
Oh, and he does sound like a freak-o dweeb.
What you're proposing is more like a use tax, except that with something that's not precisely tangible (such as the boundaries of SF), you also have to be the thought police to enforce it.
And what if someone is rabidly interested in the space program, but NEVER has anything to do with SF? I know several folk of that bent. Are they tax evasionists who should be forced to buy SF to support their special interest?
As to putting most of the gov't out of a job.. hmmmmm!!!
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Yeah, so when you file every year, your W2 or whatever can have little checkboxes for line-item veto kind of thing. You check what you want to fund. Maybe someone doesn't want to fund national defense but would rather fund medicare, or whatever. Something like that should definitely be in place for social security IMHO. But like you said, thats too democratic.
This sig intentionally left blank...
I rather doubt that it's constitutional to tax speech based on its content. Coming next, 1000% tax on publications supporting the Democratic party?
Everyone benefits from NASA, whether they realize it or not. These types of "targeted" taxes never work anyway. Politicians always figure out a way to steal money for their other interests. Example? Social Security.
Don't worry, in 10 or so more years, China's space program will be enough of a threat to make American rise up the only way we know how. In a competition of "mine's bigger than your's" and then we'll spend some money on NASA again.
If the movie flops, big deal. It's their loss of money. Nothing to cry over.
On the other hand, if a Nasa mission fails, the millions of dollars that we, as taxpayers, have poured into the project has gone down the drain.
Yes, you could argue that we ourselves finance Corperations that make lousy movies. But then, not only is this voluntary, but it they also happen to give us something back the moment we pour money into our cause. We get... Scarface (Brian De Palma isn't all bad)!
On the other hand, it takes years for the money that we pour into the government to somehow trickle back to us. And when we do get part of that money, it hardly seems worth highway robbery we face each and every tax period. After millions spent on aid to other countries and welfare, what do we get back from the government that seems satisfying? A sex scandal now and then. That's it.
That's why people get pissed every time something from NASA blows up.
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
Here's a better idea - howzabout a NASA-sponsored lottery... with the prize being a trip to space? Tickets go for $10. I think that would be a interesting (note that I didn't say fair) way to get money for NASA by people interested in NASA.
"Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
That's not how it works. Checking that box doesn't cause you to get a lower return or increase the taxes you owe. It only affects the statistical percentage of tax allocation in the IRS -- more boxes equals more percentage of money going to the campaign. The $1 is a cap to make sure it doesn't get too large.
Personally, I would like to see such a thing. Heck, I would like to see something like custom taxes, where you have a base of required stuff to pay, and then you have electives where you can have your say in the balancing of funds. Such a thing would actually encourage people to pay more taxes, because they would be more directly in control of where their money actually goes and what it's used for. This would encourage competition between government programs because they would literally be fighting for their funding. If we (the public) hear about the military buying more of the $500 toilet seats, less people will allocate a lot of money to them. If Medicare is beating up on the elderly again, less money to them. Eventually, they'll fail and be replaced by a new program. And so on the process of evolution...
Doesn't that sound like a democratic way of taxing?
"I'll just chip in a bit for RedHat: I actually have that installed on my university machine." - Linus, '95
Our society appears to be like Rome, but who exactly is running Rome? The Romans? Check this site out to see who is putting the horses in the Senate.
www.opensecrets.org
Yes. I totally agree with you about the world we live in. The rich and powerful will always run the current society, and pass that power on to their heirs... that is ALWAYS going to happen. If you check the website above carefully, you will see who is in charge of the henhouse. But the more the rich control society, the fewer opinions rule, and the more upset everyone becomes. If one person is a king and rules absolutely? Say hello to Mr. War. If you look at ALL wars, they are started by totalitarian regimes or totalitarian rulers.
I am all too happy to pay taxes too, to live in this society. Call me nuts, but I am very happy that my offspring are not going to have a Kalashnikov against their head for a dissenting opinion.
But at the same time I do not see taxes as being "the liberator." Like Rome, our society is peaceful because it is "ruled by the rabble," as the Romans would say. All great civilizations share this trait, even the Greeks. Fuck with the people because you're all powerful? We'll hang your ass or stab you out in front of the Senate. Get your ego involved and send our children to war because you have to prove you're a big dog? Then we'll kill you too. Take away our bread, movies, entertainment of choice, or anything we want for ourselves for your religious or personal motives? Say hello to the Guillotine.
Taxes just levy the government. I have no problem with them, if they actually pay for some service. I would seriously resent giving the coffers of some Emir who spends it on polo ponies, breaking every religious law that put them in power, chasing international models, and then tells us we "need to kill" infidels (but obviously not after they have shagged all the hot infidels).
Did you know that Saudi Arabia's diplomat to the USA has published poetry that speaks of the glorious suicide bombers on September 11th? Did you know that Saudi Arabia is so backwards that they let 12+ girls burn in a school fire because they didn't let the girls outside without proper coverings? They wouldn't let the fire department in because they might see girls without their "correct" garments on. Little girls screaming and burning alive, but you couldn't save them because of "the big God rules."
I'm sorry, but I have only one thing to say about a society that praises killing innocents and enforces its dress code with lethal consequences. You can guess what that is.
Those bastards are our real enemy, not just Osama. We should be taking those bastards out too. Why do I hate Saudi Arabia? One word: king.
As you can tell, I have a definite opinion about how a king should be treated.
I don't worry about the taxes so much as I worry about who's in charge.