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."
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.
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).
So how will he define science fiction?
Will LOTR be taxed? (Aliens)
Will Bond be taxed? (Gismos)
Would Shrek/Monsters inc/Toy story be taxed?
Would stories featuring missiles or fighter planes have the space tax?
I personally favour the idiot tax. All politicians favouring new and innovative taxes will give 50% of their earnings to NASA. That oughta fix it.
That's a great idea - we should only tax the people who care about NASA for NASA!!
And while we're at it, we'll pay for police protection with a tax on handguns, alarms and mace (after all, those are the people interested in protection); fire protection with a tax on smoke alarms and extinguishers; cleaning up the environment by taxing granola and birkenstocks; and welfare by taxing Volvos!
Aside from certain use fees and excise taxes where consumption is generally related to some gov't service (e.g., gasoline consumption is generally related to highway use), the gov't taxes us generally and then allocates the monies according to priorities.
I don't see a decent rationale for why scifi consumers should fund NASA when the population at large reaps the benefits of the scientific and techological discoveries. It's not just the kids with Jar-Jar dolls who drink Tang...
... you're closer to the truth than you probably realize. The budget on Brian de Palma's awful Mission to Mars was US $90 million... more than 75% of the budget of an equally-flawed but substantially better-intended real-life mission.
When Hollywood drops a bomb, nobody cares. When NASA loses a similar amount of money trying to advance human knowledge, it's practically the end of the world. Congressional inquiries are launched, indignant editorials are published, and modern-day Great Society pundits bemoan the tragic waste of funding that could have gone to their own pet causes.
This is the unfortunate reality of publicly-funded space exploration. It's perhaps the ultimate embodiment of the "bread and circuses" social phenomenon that attended the fall of Rome. Never mind the urban myths -- think of the money NASA could have saved if they actually had hired Stanley Kubrick to stage the Apollo missions in the Nevada desert. Apparently, that would have been good enough for us.
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
Just because the guy has a stupid idea does not make it cool to take shots at people that work at supermarkets. We do not know what he does in his work capacity. Maybe he is an executive.
It is sad for me to see it when "educated" people ridicule others for what they do for a living.
Next time just keep it on topic
Exactly. Frex, what I read (and write) is mainly space opera. It takes place in space, or at least occasionally in space, but it really has nothing to do with space other than as a handy environment in which to set the story.
George Clayton Johnson (co-author of LOGAN'S RUN) once asked me "What makes your books SF?" And my honest answer was: "Nothing. With a few tweaks, they could just as easily be medieval fantasy." Someday I may even rewrite 'em that way, just to see how it turns out.
So.. which version gets taxed? the original? only the parts that take place in space? all derivative works (such as a fantasy reworking)??
It's a dumb idea for a vague tax,and clear evidence that this guy hasn't seen enough of the Real World[tm] to have any business in public office, making decisions that impact other people's lives.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
There HAS to be a big project to catch the imagination and attention of the next generation of Space exploration workers. Right now Space is Boring. Computers are hot, no one is growing up wanting to be an astronaut anymore. There needs to be something done to fire the imagination of the world again, we're so embroiled in our petty border squabbles between people of differently shaded skin or slightly modified philosphy that people can't realize that we are all human, we are all at heart the same, and we should all be working together to spread ourselves to the stars. It's possible, it can be done, and it will be done. I'd love to live to see it, and I'm willing to pay to make it happen.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
Politicians are scum but they are smarter than the typical slashdotter. A SciFi tax will accomplish nothing. If an extra billion comes in from a SciFi tax then the politicians will reduce traditional NASA funding by a billion so they can spend that money elsewhere. This is an old trick and you should have recognized the pattern, "state lottery income will increase funding for schools", "a slight increase in the gasoline tax will increase highway funding", etc.
intelligence != common sense
intelligence != good judgement
By your logic: "I work for a living and pay income tax, and am not even
vaguely interested in the welfare program. So why should *I* be taxed for it??"
Same could be applied for nearly every government program.
Let's see... we spend $125B a year in corporate welfare. NASA is asking for a little over $15B. Which one is most likely to see cuts?
The economic benefits of the space program go far beyond Tang and Hubble calendars. The space race is second only to war for causing advances in technology. (Not that it's a race anymore.) Sure, a lot of the funding goes to dog-and-pony type operations, and things that count more towards PR than knowledge; but considering the return rate for the knowledge we *do* glean, why the *HElL* are we so tight with funding?????
Taxing SF to fund NASA is like taxing full-contact sports to fund war, or taxing Big Wheels to fund roads. Everyone reaps the benefits (except those who die in the war, I guess); everyone should pay. Hell, they didn't ask if I wanted to help fund the S&L bailout; why should they ask short-sighted tight-fisted bastards if they want to fund space research?
If they want to use opt-in funding, they should do that for everything. I don't want to bail out Enron and Boeing and the airlines; send my money to NASA and university research, instead.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
I rather doubt that it's constitutional to tax speech based on its content. Coming next, 1000% tax on publications supporting the Democratic party?
That makes much more sense -- same as the current checkbox to give an extra couple bucks to political campaigns. Why not add stuff like "Give $2 to NASA" or "Give $2 to local schools" or the like? that way anyone who wants to can do it, and those who don't, or can't afford it, don't get dinged.
Ooops, did we mention sense and gov't together? Silly citizens, thinking they have a say in the gov't!
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
He's running for public office, and apparently proposed this tax as part of his campaign; as citizens it's our JOB to pass judgment on him (thus electing him or not). If he says dumb things in public, he'll be judged accordingly.
;)
Think of voting as moderating on a massive scale.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
But he isn't taxed "extra" for it. That is the point. As it stands, almost all taxes go into a general fund, which then pays for everything, whether a given taxpayer supports it or not. Then we hire people to decide what things a large chunk of taxpayers want, and pay for those things. While paying taxes is sometimes painful, I think I get a reasonable value for my tax dollars, and I don't resent that that is the price to pay to live in my country.
I also support the space program. I think in the short term there is a lot of valuble science that we can do in space, and in the long term our destiny lies in the stars. NASA has some problems, but overall I support both manned and unmanned space exploration.
However, if the government is charging me extra to support the space program, I want tax credits back for the missle defense system, which I think is a useless, worthless waste of money and time that is unlikely to work reliably and less likely to protect against relevent threats in the next 20 years. But that is not a choice I get to make alone. and if in 15 years, and ICBM with a nuclear warhead is shot down by the system (unlikely as it seems to me) lots of people will be glad that military and technology experts much more familiar with threats and countermeasures got to make the decision rather than just one guy.
Finally, earmarked taxes have been found to be extremely ineffective. Lottery revenue in some states is earmarked for education. On the face of it, this is an effective idea: tax stupid people to fund education to make more smart people. Unfortunately, in practice this tends to make the legeslatures allocate correspondingly less from the general fund to education. Education gets little or no real benefit, but the belief that it is "supporting education" sells lottery tickets.
Here's the rub - the only way to protect the US population is to stop making enemies and to work against poverty and illiteracy all over the world. The guys who get drafted for fundamentalist causes are mainly poor and uneducated orphans from the streets. A standard brainwash takes place, where the organization offers food and shelter, thus getting total emotional control over the victim.
I disagree. For a start, working against poverty and illiteracy to us is understood to be cultural imperialism by much of the Middle East. In many parts of that region, the only reason that children are taught to read is so that they can read the Qu'ran. The only reason that there isn't universal poverty is oil - Saudi Arabian universities turn out more graduates in Religious Studies than they do engineers, doctors, etc. What I'm trying to say is, there is no way to address illiteracy and poverty - by our standards - without a radical overhaul of the society, but even trying to do that is provocative to terrorists.
Secondly, the terrorists that would be provoked aren't poor or illiterate. Osama himself is a multi-millionaire who has travelled extensively in the West. Sheik Omar, on trial for the kidnap and murder of Daniel Pearl, was educated at the London School of Economics, one of Europe's most prestigious universities. Osama's second in command was a dentist before becoming an international gangster.
But you are right to a certain extent, the way for the US to stop making enemies is to stop intervening in other cultures unless it is specifically for the defense of the mainland (or perhaps to help a long-term ally).
You know, I guess I'm the last of the rubes, and proud of it. I don't feel "robbed" every April 15th. Yes, I'd love it if my tax bill could be (responsibly!) lowered, and yes, I cringe hearing about all the spending misfires and pork projects. But I am still proud to contribute to the "general welfare" of the United Stated. Government serves a noble purpose and government, like other things in this society, costs money. As Justice Holmes says, taxes are the price you pay for civilization. I look at the civilization we have built and I think the price is still low -- a few thousand dollars a year in exchange for personal liberty and the rule of law? A bargain by any measure.
Is this something out of Life of Brian? We get roads, and hospitals, and police protection. And emergency rescue teams and fire stations and national defense. And schools and universities and libraries. And agricultural development and city planning and trade deals. And of course the highest-quality scientific and technological research anywhere, ever, producing and funding such things as the Internet through which you post your screed and through which we suffer to read it.
Well, now we get to the main cause of the trouble. If that's what you find "satisfying", then I am absolutely ecstatic that our government disappoints you. See beyond the animal and perhaps you won't be quite so dismissive.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
While I don't agree with the logic on this, if it were to happen, could we do the same thing for the military?
Anybody who buys GI Joe's gets taxed. Anything camo. Man, they could have made a mint back in the 70s/80s off sales of "Better dead than red" shirts alone!
Don't know what money from Spawn figures would go to. Occult organizations?
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