Slashdot Mirror
California Seeks To Tax Rocket Launches, Which Are Already Taxed (arstechnica.com)
The state of California is looking into taxing its thriving rocket industry. The Franchise Tax Board has issued a proposed regulation for public comment that would require companies that launch spacecraft to pay a tax based upon "mileage" traveled by that spacecraft from California. Ars Technica reports: The proposal says that California-based companies that launch spacecraft will have to pay a tax based upon "mileage" traveled by that spacecraft from California. (No, we're not exactly sure what this means, either). The proposed regulations were first reported by the San Francisco Chronicle, and Thomas Lo Grossman, a tax attorney at the Franchise Tax Board, told the newspaper that the rules are designed to mirror the ways taxes are levied on terrestrial transportation and logistics firms operating in California, like trucking or train companies. The tax board is seeking public input from now until June 16, when it is expected to vote on the proposed tax. The federal government already has its own taxes for commercial space companies, and until now no other state has proposed taxing commercial spaceflight. In fact most other states, including places like Florida, Texas, and Georgia, offer launch providers tax incentives to move business into their areas.
This is so stupid that it makes my head hurt. Way to fuck over the private space industry, California!
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Every time I read an article about the good old USA these days, its just a reminder of how many dumb ideas and idiots they have in power which are pulling the levers.
Space exploration has the potential to generate trillions in revenue for the private and government sectors as well as create who new industries. And now the Californian government wants to tax this even more, and stifle the development? what a joke. The leaders of these companies will just end up relocating to places like India which are much more encouraging of new business and developments.
De-orbit it so it lands in California - preferably the governor's office in Sacramento. With a little sign saying "miles from California: ZERO".
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
FU
And hopefully the casualties will include the scum who want to saddle the people with more taxes and more rules.
Death in and of itself would be too good for these pieces of shit. Horrible suffering is at a minimum what they deserve.
Don't worry the GOP will take it away from you.
That is the way to do it. Admittedly, California does have a fair amount of leverage what with the whole west coast domination thing, but that'll only make those companies put forth a bit more effort to get things working with Florida, Georgia, or maybe even Texas, which could probably work rather well what with the business friendly environment coupled with available talent pool there.
billions of my tax dollars went into making these things possible. Maybe if the folks profiting from them weren't stashing all their cash overseas I'd be a little less interested. But well, that's not how these thing go.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Here's a public comment. This is a really stupid idea. How would they tax a deep space probe like Voyager? Also it makes no sense. The reason terrestrial transit is taxed by mileage is that the financial burden of operating and maintaining all the infrastructure required by terrestrial transport is more or less directly proportional to the mileage driven on all existing roads. (Naturally this does not account for when new construction or increased traffic necessitates improvements or widening of existing roads or the making of altogether new ones, but that's not what taxes on fuel generally pay for, as far as I know.)
Rocket launches if taxed, should be taxed the same basic way. Based upon the financial burden created, in the form of increased risk of a rocket launch going wrong and causing deaths or injuries or causing property damage or destruction, and of course to offset the pollution caused by the launch of the rocket, and any harm to humans or wildlife from the noise, etc.
I think it's fair to count the miles of road traveled just like the other forms of transportation. Travel off road should be exempted.
Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
Won't this encourage companies to launch their rockets from different states, possibly taking jobs with them? What is the point of this tax?
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
Asking for...a friend. XD
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat.
...they're just going to tax California rocket fuel (or maybe just Mendocino rocket fuel)? I dunno though, haven't RTFA'd (R'dTFA?).
Making money? Presumably the private space industry benefits from public infrastructure and UC gradautes and all that. It's an industry, just the same as any other...why shouldn't it pay its fair share of taxes?
940 million KM orbit around sun per year?
15 billion KM the sun travels around the galaxy?
19 trillion KM the galaxy travels through space?
Or some other arbitrary value?
Their stated intention is to amend the proposed regulation to also include a tax on wheelage.
Game: Player 'Donald J Trump' now has AI skill level 'experimental'.
3-2-1 ... Yeehaw!
Texas - It's like a whole 'nuther country!
For Texas. Which has a space launch industry of its own, low taxes, and a business climate that's already luring companies from California...
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
The only launches that take place in California are for polar orbits. California is used for these launches because the Earth turns away from the rocket's path and if there is a problem, the rocket drops into the Pacific. There is no advantage being close to the equator (like is had with Cape Canaveral).
I would think that Oregon and Washington state would offer the same advantage for polar launches and would like to bring in the space launch business which they can do now by simply not charging a state tax.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
the public comment part is a farce. They want a tax and will get one no matter what the public comment is.
We just got a new gas tax thanks to the Dems ignoring the public/voters.
It's sad to live here if you are middle class.
The way that the people in power fool the rest of the sheeple is sad and there isn't change on the horizon from what I'm seeing
Isn't this just California doing the thing it is best at?
Couldn't you simply write:
Way to fuck over the INSERT TYPE OF BUSINESS HERE industry?
That pretty much defines California. Hell, even Apple with more money than God built a campus in the shape of a wheel so they could role it out of the state when the taxes became too large a burden even for them.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
California is all for rocket launches - as long as they are zero emission and electric only.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
California loves taxes.
In most other states, for example, beverage containers have a tax ("deposit") that is meant to get all the containers taken away from public spaces, whether by gleaners or by thrifty citizens. In contrast, California sets the tax low enough that it's not worth redeeming unless you're desperate - figuring enough people will blow it off that the state can just keep the majority of it.
Dave Barry said it best: California taxes are high, government is incompetent and corrupt in contrast to Florida: taxes low, government incompetent and corrupt.
This makes sense. Transportation taxes exist to pay for road and rail maintenance (usually based on number of axles of a vehicle, as heavier vehicles do more damage). Of course, taxing rockets in a similar manner is required to pay for maintenance of the air...
Wait a second. Whaaat?
How about we stop trying to fund California (which by the way provides well more than its share of tax revenues to the federal gov't compared to its receipts) using taxes on new industries and new people who help us create new value, and instead remove the tax protections for entrenched old people who got here first, got theirs, and now are happy to put most of the share of the burden on everyone else? Prop 13, unions, local regulations that prevent affordble housing -- I'm looking at you.
The Republik of Kalifornia has been in a deficit for years now. Those in the state senate and congress there are eager to find new avenues of Ca$h to make up for that deficit. They would tax the air you breath given enough incentive.
Just like any other State of Taxation... it will only serve to drive businesses away from their state and to a more receptive environment.
This message brought to you by Senator Diane Fein$tein. Who remind$ you that you $hould under$tand you are per$onably respon$ible to $upport the Republik.. and her Agenda$.
And don't get me started on her and her cronies and their efforts to remove the second amendment from their citizens....
Peace out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianne_Feinstein
All companies launching spacecraft that are based on California will promptly move out of California.
will have to pay a tax based upon "mileage" traveled by that spacecraft from California. (No, we're not exactly sure what this means, either).
Ars Technica must have a reading comprehension problem because it's spelled out pretty clearly in the proposal exactly what it means.
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
Industry itself. Name me one place in the US where you have everything at your finger tips, literally without taking a huge dent in logistical and operating costs. This is why I operate in California and this is why so many still operate in California. I've heard stories of those that moved to Henderson, NV and it's not all roses over there either, especially when your logistical costs sky rocket and the huge labor shortage is preventing you from operating (Amazon in Las Vegas didn't last long, did it?).
And this is where California and its ridiculous taxation is quite well calculated. Not too much to force your hand and just below the level, as annoying as it is.
Next time I have to tank my rocket at the gas station I will reconsider and switch to electric engine!
If this tax does pass, expect companies like SpaceX to move out of California, and either Sea Launch to be revitalized or a new company doing the same thing as Sea Launch (launching rockets from a platform in the middle of the ocean) to spring up.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
"I told you taxes were sky-rocketing!"
Table-ized A.I.
California has been working very hard to drive out all businesses AND taxpayers with the highest overall taxes in the entire country. They'll keep piling them taxes on until the breaking point is reached.
I recently started thinking about finding employment in another state.
-- Will program for bandwidth
> directly proportional to the mileage driven on all existing roads. (Naturally this does not account for when new construction or increased traffic necessitates improvements or widening of existing roads or the making of altogether new ones
Sure it does. The reason roads need to be widened for more lanes, or new roads need to be built, is BECAUSE the existing lanes are full. The vehicles filling up the existing lanes cause the need for more lanes. So it makes sense that they pay for more lanes, via gas taxes, permit fees for oversized loads , tolls, or whatever mechanism.
But the Galaxy Express 999 ticket price just went up to 1 billion dollars!
Living in this state is simply Unreal. They can pry my 8 Ball out of my cold, dead hands.
You should turn signatures off.
They are space ships too afterall.
I hope they become there own country. Just think what the taxes will look like then! If you die there, is there a tax on that as well?
I'm not sure the private space industry is mature enough to be taxed.. Besides that might have happen at a national level, probably international level, as rockets will otherwise be moved...
Regardless, the idea isn't crazy... Trying to get fewer rockets is probably not the worst idea...
But it would probably make more sense to tax by weight rather than milage, if you really do want to tax this just yet... Or even better tax the fuel resources.. and impose heavy fines for any space junk left behind.
Sitizen, this tax message is brought to you by glorious People's Democratic Republic of California
No, if you pay attention to the part where the tax goes down the farther you fly, you can realize that the purpose of this tax is to discourage the "space" tourism flights that barely go anywhere, without much impact on real launches that have a traditional purpose, like putting hardware into orbit, or flying far enough to get some science done.
Space tourism flights would have significant negative impacts on the surrounding community, and would be much more frequent than satellite launches; even when the tourism flights are much much smaller business. You don't want small fries inconveniencing millions of people to make thousands of dollars, that is just not good management of the commons. But if those flights were generating lots of tax revenue, then maybe the convenience is worth it.
But also, maybe people in Texas have different quality of life expectations, and won't be bothered. Everybody wins! Just like, here in Oregon we don't want to breath the fumes from gas refineries, so we let them do that in California and we pay an extra ~ 10 cents a gallon for locally cleaner air. Everybody wins!
Instead of just hearing "tax" and waving your hands that they would create oceanic launch platforms, you might instead want to revise your logic to consider the likely situation where the cost of the tax is below the cost of developing a new launch site.
I mean, seriously, how many rocket scientists drive with fake license plates on their cars to protest taxes? That is the sort of person it would take to waste a whole bunch of money moving their business over the mere existence of taxes without even doing a cost analysis.
a tax attorney at the Franchise Tax Board, told the newspaper that the rules are designed to mirror the ways taxes are levied on terrestrial transportation and logistics firms operating in California, like trucking or train companies.
Huh? I thought the justification for charging commercial vehicles based on miles was due to them wearing down roads, which then require tax money to fix. Why would you tax a rocket based on how far it travels? Do they think the rockets are wearing down the vacuum of space? Man, my state is run by nuts.
Here's the gist of it:
Tax = Gros commercial revenue (1) * Number of miles travelled in California from launch (2) / total number of miles travelled (3)
(1) Transportation revenue, not r&d spend, etc.
(2) max 62 miles California airspace recognized
(3) default is 310 miles if company cannot disclose distance
I've worked at a couple smaller hardware based companies including on the East Coast and the Midwest, and now work at a place on the West Coast. There are plenty of other cities around the US that have quite a tech industry and worker pool to draw from, while having an interesting enough scene that you can get harder to find employees to relocate there. I've also seen start ups and companies built in smaller towns in the Midwest who draw in people looking for quieter towns and low cost of living.
The only place I've worked at that has had trouble getting employees to come out to them is the one I work at now on the West Coast. We have to pay employees almost double what similar employees were paid in other places with lower cost of living. Even then, some just refuse, because what coworkers pay for rent here on small place would be a 10-year mortgage payment on a huge place in one of the other cities. The company is expanding, and the land costs for the company are skyrocketing too, as opposed to the other places that could get large plots of land 5-10 minutes outside the city for almost nothing. The regulations seem harsher too, in terms of the number of people and permits needed for things we install within our current building. The only reason the company is here is because of inertia from the founders who already lived in the city, and they regret that choice.
There is some argument for creating a business near where the product will be sold, or near where you are trying to poach people from some existing similar businesses (specialists, or will need a large skilled labor force). But if your business simply needs some good programmers, engineers, and a couple specialists, you could setup shop in a lot of places.
With taxes you buy - civilisation. Somehow, I think you actually want things like a sewage system, a justice system, a police force, roads, an education system. Perhaps you'd prefer to have ones that worked, too.
So they have to be paid for.
Sharing costs is good way to do things, especially for things that are very costly but quite rare, like earthquakes, or major heart attacks.
Why do people hate taxes so much? The results do have considerable value - have you been to, say, Papua New Guinea?
"Cats like plain crisps"
And got really excited, before I discovered it wasn't about hand held missile tubes, but big missiles launching into space.
There we go again...
If it moves, tax it.
If it keeps moving, regulate it.
And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
An classic observation by a former governor of California...
Putting something in orbit is then going to become really expensive. You never stop paying.
At least an answer to the space junk problem. Except for geostationary orbit maybe.
I believe (*strongly*) in State rights. Please let California succeed or fail based on their own State laws.
I am no lawyer but well, there are several sections that might cause some pain with this:
Article 1, Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
So impost and excises must be uniform and by congress, hmm I wonder if a spaceship on an international trajectory applies to that, then there is the fact they can't do anything to legislate what happens at the launch site as that is federal property.
Article 1, Section 9
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another; nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
I'm sure the space ship is being exported from california... and that second one while originally written for boats applies to airports too, I guess we should extend that to spaceports.
Article 1, Section 10
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Control of the Congress.
so we are reiterating again, such a tax is only allowed to be imposed by congress.
We've got your power generation and a large chunk of your semiconductor business. Now give us your space industry.
Taxes are forever. Leave them behind.
What is the point of this tax?
So they can blame it on Trump when the space industry moves away.
Hmm, if it would cost me $150 to build a launch platform vs having to pay $100 in taxes the calculation would be pretty simple: I'd build the launch platform.
Simply because the $100 are just burned money to me. I don't get anything for those $100. While by spending $150 for a new launch platform I get: A new launch platform, know how on how to build launch platforms and the good feeling not having burned $100 (nor having financed the people who want to mooch off me).
California, just because you smell a dollar or two - you are getting a truckload of tax value already. If you over-tax now, you kill it. It is like fishing the pond dry before the fish can make babies.
The real trick is to under-tax while growth is happening until max size has been attained, then transition to taxing at bit under under the max (or really 95th percentile) growth rate. If there is shrinkage - the capacity to handle it is built in. That maximizes long-term AND sustainable revenue.
Not being about sustainability in more than theory, and not being able to do more at math that "I want your pie" you might never have done this, but it is how to maximize both industry and taxation, without necessarily destroying the system; you are on trajectory to destroy the system.
You should talk to, and listen to, some people capable of doing math at CalTech or Berkeley and ask them how to make new fish when they have been fished to extinction. There is, right now, only one (actually living) fish in the private commercial to space ecosystem:SpaceX. Please treat it like the endangered species it is, and don't tax it to extinction.
-EngrStudent
There seriously has to be something wrong with the water they are drinking in California. They seem hell bent on driving business and industry from the state.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I don't see how a state can justify taxing you for something you do in another state let alone off-globe. I don't see how they think they can tax travel through space like they own it.
And this isn't like taxes that are intended to fund the activity, such as gas taxes that repair the roads. It's not like SpaceX is wearing out the atmosphere (or space for that matter) and California wants to recoup money they spend repairing it or upgrading the infrastructure of it. This is just a blatant money grab.
Not that it will stop them from trying. SpaceX has spent a considerable amount in setting up their business there. At least they haven't dumped their own cash into building a launch facility. (they're using Kennedy and Vandenberg, and paying for each launch) That would really be a low blow otherwise, waiting for them to do expensive construction before dropping a tax bomb on them. How can you encourage a company to leave that is already providing your state with so much employment, good press, and income to the state?
To their credit, SpaceX can fairly easily give them the bird and pack up and leave though. They'll need a new launch pad, but barge landing may come in quite handy. Too bad they can't take off the same way. I hope Musk makes that point clear to them. Unfortunately, as we'e seen recently (brexit) the people don't always vote in their best interest.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
If you get too cold, I'll tax the heat. If try to sit, I'll tax your seat. If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet. 'Cause I'm the tax man... a Dumbocrap. Brought to you by Communist hippie retards like Maxine Waters and Barbara Steisand.
Wait until it matures and takes root deep enough so that it can't just pack up and move.
California has pollution issues beyond what most states suffer. The real message probably is please leave California as we have air quality issues and rocket exhaust is nasty stuff. Nevada might be a great spot to launch such missiles. In Nevada if a missile screws up the chances are it won't hit a populated area.
As bad of an idea as it is, it is also retroactive to 1-1-16. It is a retroactive tax on an industry unique to CA that is already vastly overtaxed to begin with. At least Trump eliminating the state tax deduction at the Federal level will incentivise states to lower their unusual income taxes. The liberal Democrats running the states will of course ignore incentives over tax and spend theology. As Obummer said, elections have consequences.
Of Reasons to Keep your families and business OUT OF CALI! Bankrupt this liberal nightmare of a state. All it cranks out are morons.
Unpopular opinion: Rocket launches have huge externalities and thus need to be tightly regulated (and taxed!) to ensure that the companies performing them are not taking advantage of their neighbors. That said, in my (more popular) opinion the private space travel industry needs all the help it can get right now, and assuming these taxes aren't minimal, the government should agree to waive them for the foreseeable future. In any case, I believe there is no harm in discussing what would be a fair tax.
that's the height at which air atmosphere stops and Outer Space begins, technically outside the country. So start listing mileage as only 62 miles until international space. treat like you would be shipping to Japan.
You tax miles on the road because you cause wear on the road. A longer mission is causing more wear on the what, exactly?
Oh my satellite has a lifespan of 10 years, so I play 10x more than a short lived satellite?
Fuck that, and fuck you, California.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
The East coast (e.g. Maine) is not an option because you want to launch the rocket slightly to the west, so that the Earth will rotate underneath it allowing coverage of all longitudes.
Really? There's a way to make a near-polar orbit that follows the Earth rotation? I'm not even sure tilting east or west will create a different precession and change the "stellar azimuth" at which the orbit crosses the equatorial plane.
ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)
I was doing a ride-a-long with a local police chief in my hometown. We were driving around "the hang out spot" looking for kids firing off fireworks, which were illegal in the city, and called "littering". Saw this kid, teenager, firing off a bottle rocket. Had the headlights off, rolled right up next to him. Chief lowered the window, looked at the surprised kid, said..."I could write you a ticket for littering". Kid NEVER missed a beat. said.."how do you know it landed?". Chief looked at me, raised the window and we drove off, he said "well, can't argue with logic like that".
ICBM's have been launched for decades from submarines, submerged even. I see *no* problem in launching one from a big barge or something. In fact it should be considerably easier than trying to land on one, which is already done.
From the rockets reference frame, it stay stationary but California moved and should pay the space launch company.
Instead of just hearing "tax" and waving your hands that they would create oceanic launch platforms, you might instead want to revise your logic to consider the likely situation where the cost of the tax is below the cost of developing a new launch site.
Is it? Because California has a history of taxing things out of existence, and I see no reason why they wouldn't do the same thing here. Also, doing this sends a message that California will take your money. They might just decide to leave before California places any more taxes on their business.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The politicians want this tax because it adds more reasons for more billionaires to lobby them.
"His name was James Damore."
It's all in the statistics: https://www.aei.org/publication/the-california-exodus-to-texas-is-reflected-in-market-based-one-way-u-haul-truck-rental-prices/
Make movies and TV shows in Hollywood.
Guardians of the Galaxy 2: Atlanta
Ant-Man: Atlanta
Captain America: Civil War: Atlanta
The Walking Dead? Atlanta area, again.
Once a vehicle leaves the ground under its own power, it falls under the sole jurisdiction of the FAA. Period. CA does not have the right to tax travel in the air.
California wants to tax drivers based on the number of miles traveled on the grounds that the state owns the roads and has to maintain them. So by that pretzel logic, the State of California (who loves to think that they know better than everyone else what causes cancer) is essentially saying that they own space and is responsible for maintaining it. Nnnnnkay.
The U.S. has two primary launch sites.
Its okay, I won't tell the folks at Wallops Island.
...are there enough WOMEN in the space industry?
We need another tax, probably on penises.
-Styopa
I call it organized crime, you call it government
I'm pro-business taxation and this is fucking stupid. Taxes on mileage for trucks and other conveyances is fair because it's related to the cost of maintaining the streets and highways they are using. What the fuck is a rocket using, the air? I'm curious how much California believes it is spending to maintain the atmosphere above the state to keep it ready to carry rockets.
California needs to add a 5000% rocket launch tax as well as a space company tax.
Drive all those companies to florida where they belong.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
What Solandri wrote is not completely clear, but he is 100% correct.
In polar orbit, you have to have 0 east/west velocity, else your orbit will not travel over the pole. Unless you are launching from the north or south pole, you will have to cancel out your eastward velocity (caused by the rotation of the earth) by launching slightly west (relative to the ground).
While in polar orbit, the earth continues to rotate. You are only moving vertically in orbit, and the earth is only rotating laterally. These two have different periods, hence the orbit will eventually pass above every point on the earth.
Sounds like some politicians in California are getting some payola to try and kill the current aerospace business friendly climate there. If this does pass it will kill the industry in California and those other states that want this business will get it. As with all things follow the money.
California was ranked 17th per capita in 2012 if you include DC as a state. As of 2015 (according to wikipedia) California is ranked 10th per capita (not counting DC). Other than New York, all of the states with higher numbers either are "petro-states" with low populations (Alaska, Dakota, etc) or quasi-city states (Massachusetts, etc).
Virginia, Georgia, Alaska all have rocket launch sites too.
The power to tax is the power to destroy. Hopefully, Cali will remember that.
Look at all the films/TV being made in Texas, Georgia and Louisiana. Why do you think that is?
Don't confuse theory often applied to computer science versus actual traffic. If you engage your common sense, it's quite obvious that a city with 100,000 people commuting will need more road lanes than a city with 10,000 commuters or 1,000. One reason for that is that affect you are probably thinking of has to do with average throughput over a long time. Actual traffic has rush hour - all the commuters get on the road at 5:00. You don't get to send some people home at 3:00, some at 4:00, and some at 5:00 when dealing with real traffic.
You need enough lanes near downtown for everyone to get into a lane at 5:00
Which illustrates another problem: California's economy is volatile. The point is: California is far from the top.
Ah, so now you want to get into detailed analyses. Well, given the high cost of living in California, a lot of California's GDP isn't real output, it's just churning. That is, California's massive regulations and taxes may increase the GSP on paper, but they simply aren't productive. And wealth in California very unequally distributed, with a minority living in wealthy coastal enclaves while much of the rest of the state is urban slums and rural poverty.
In any case, you are entitled to your own opinions. If you come from Europe, India, or Mexico, I'm sure it's dazzling. And if you're a Prius-driving Facebook engineer with a $2M home in Mountain View, I'm sure it's just fine for you too. But if you think that "look people, if you tax like California you can be like California" is persuasive to people in the rest of the country, you're a fool.
And SpaceX will now do almost all their launches from Florida pads. Especially anything related to Mars
Would someone please step in and save us California residents from our inane "government"?
It's gone completely insane.
Next, the'll tax air.
look it up.
Any time an industry in California can reasonably be described as "thriving," the legislature will tax (and regulate) the shit out of it for the specific purpose of driving it out of the state. The rich people who own the legislature already have theirs, and they will insure a steady supply of (wage) slave labor to be their servants. A thriving industry threatens that supply.
OK, but make sure to pay the 50% leaving town tax!!
Are the Californians going to tax the US on its space launches? How about military launches?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandenberg_Air_Force_Base
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_Air_Force_Base
Another launch facility that is pretty busy and the only one completely owned by NASA is at Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia. They're known for balloons and sounding rockets but they also have Antares launches. They're just not known for the large sexy launches like the other two.
The rocket flies up to the top of the dome and there's a little door in the dome. Once you exit the door you stop paying California taxes, but inside the dome they can charge you mileage! Also speeding, there are speeding tickets inside the dome. Including for rockets.
The combination for the door lock? 123456. Same as for the luggage.
By convincing people with "California values" to move elsewhere, they're ensuring greater representation by taking chunks outside of their own state.
Dormant Commerce Clause.
I hear California is so full of shit that they are trying to take the left wing nuts and split the state so the normal people in California don't have to suffer this stupidity. http://sfist.com/2017/03/26/la...
Are we taking bets on whether rocket companies choose leftie California or normal, business friendly California?
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
Who would have thought California was so desperate for money/
California's actual history in the Universe in which you're leaving the comment is that they're one of the most business-friendly places on the whole planet.
California's actual history in the Universe in which you're leaving the comment is that they're one of the most business-friendly places on the whole planet.
They're corporation-friendly, not business friendly. Small businesses have an uphill road in California. Massive tech firms, on the other hand, get all kinds of fellation.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
California seeks to move rocket launches to another state.
You're mistaking politics on AM radio for news about the business environment in California.
https://www.sba.gov/sites/defa...
Here is some data from the SBA about California:
When you hear about California having a huge economy that would be a major country on its own, they're mostly talking about the small businesses. They have large businesses too, of course.
Dear Trailer Trash,
As an IT teacher who lives and works in Michigan, I can personally confirm everything you quoted.
-Michigan's schools have been intentionally defunded in a blatent attempt to force financial hardships, State takeovers, and ultimately fail their students.
-The money saved by defunding schools was supposed to be used to fix the roads. Instead, it went into the rainy-day fund, where it can only be touched under certain circumstances.
-The potholes in our city, county and State are horrific. There are some that you can put a traffic cone into where the cone won't reach the pavement level, in different directions within a one mile radius of my house.
-The State appointed managers have managed to destroy city after city. Flint was forced by them to switch water supplies to save $100 per day. The State officials that really knew what was happening purchased water coolers for themselves and are now being prosecuted.
-Thanks to State appointed managers, less than 50% of black people in Michigan are able to elect a local official with jurisdiction to make any decisions. In the process, we have literally lost the right to vote. The State cut funding to cities to save itself, then took them over when the defunding caused a shortfall.
-Governor Snyder is using Michigan taxpayer money to pay for lawyers to defend himself while the State slowly becomes unlivable.
Clearly you are either a shill or have been brainwashed by your media consumption. You know nothing of the slow-motion train wreck that is Michigan.
Would you make the same argument if there was a (really low) tax on breathing ? After all, if the tax were really low, cost analysis would indicate you should rather pay it than move elsewhere breathing isn't taxed.
Here in PA, our road taxes and tolls go for road-centric causes - repairs, employees, infrastructure, etc, ...
What is this new, proposed CA tax supposed to support?
Do the airways need to be repaired?
Who owns, and/or maintains, the launchpads?
If more taxes are needed, why not just tax the rich folks appropriately?!
It seems that we need to spend more on space endeavors (that serve the public), not tax it more.
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
If so they'd better be quick about it.