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.

Comments

Stupid

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

This is so stupid that it makes my head hurt. Way to fuck over the private space industry, California!

Re:Stupid

[The Snowman]

Way to fuck over the private space industry, California!

The private space industry will not be fucked over. They will leave, and go to places like Texas and Florida who, according to the summary, offer tax incentives to do business there.

The only entities who might be "fucked over" are the California citizens who might otherwise work at these companies. Although, if they are smart, they will move to Texas or Florida too.

Re:Stupid

[Phylter]

California is where new industries go to die. Why bother going there where companies that create jobs are punished? You're right, they'll go elsewhere and thrive instead of staying there.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is Californians bring their political diseases when they move to saner places.

Re:Stupid

[Trailer Trash]

My city (Franklin, TN, part of the Nashville/Franklin/Murfreesboro metro area) is aggressively recruiting California companies to relocate here. Our two biggest scores within the last couple of years were the Nissan North America headquarters (brought 1300 people from the president down) and the Carl's Jr./Hardees headquarters. CA is bad enough that we're getting companies of that size to literally pack up and move 3000 miles.

It doesn't hurt that we have no geographic boundaries to growth, so land is still pretty cheap. $500K will get you a 3 bedroom 1300 sq ft bungalow in Burbank. Here, it buys you a 3000 sq ft house on an acre, or more house and less land if you'd like.

And we have about the same sales tax rate as CA (9.25%), but no state income tax.

Would it surprise you to know that our economy is thriving?

Re:Stupid

[Trailer Trash]

California's GDP kinda disproves your entire premise.

Cali is where Companies go to grow. Conservatives like to think that "big government" (like the kind that paves roads, funds schools, funds fire depts.) are bad...

No conservative is against the sort of things that government is supposed to do, such as paving roads and funding schools. Hello, straw man. They do tend to be against stuff that government shouldn't be doing, like taxing rockets.

You know... MI which is poisoning its citizens with lead and NC which lost over a billion dollars in economic activity over their hate-filled law.

LOL! This is what happens when you believe media matters - you look like an idiot. They were claiming that NC would lose that much money over some period of years, but in fact it had no impact at all. A bunch of people who weren't going to visit there decided to not visit there. It's like the "boycott" the same group of lunatics had against Chick-Fil-A (which resulted in CFA's biggest single day sales ever). I'm actually going to visit NC this year specifically to offset any lunatics that actually did decide not to go, because I know their law wasn't "hate filled".

This is how a well run democratic republic is supposed to operate... Say "we have this idea... what do you think" and people tell them "fuck you, you're nuts"... /rant against stupidity which refuses to see things in any way other than the way they want.

The problem in CA is that there are so few people to say "fuck you, you're nuts" that they're not heard. And they don't have the money that the leftist looneys in the state have, and you can't talk to a Democrat without giving it money first.

Do what You Love

[SuperKendall]

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.

Re:What's to stop companies from launching elsewhe

[Solandri]

The U.S. has two primary launch sites.

• Cape Canaveral in Florida. Launches into equatorial orbits are done here because it's the further south of the contiguous 48 states. The closer to the equator you launch from, the higher your eastward velocity, and the less energy you have to expend to achieve equatorial orbit. So the further south you can launch a rocket from, the greater its payload capacity using the same amount of fuel. (The southern tip of Texas would be another option, but any Eastward launch from there would pass over Florida, creating a hazard if a rocket blows up or crashes.)
• Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. Launches into polar orbits are done here because there's nothing to the south but open ocean, and it's part of the contiguous 48 states. Polar orbits are useful for earth-monitoring satellites (both for earth sciences and spying) because the satellite can cover all latitudes. Equatorial orbits generally limit you to about 15-30 degrees north or south of the equator. In theory you could do this over any of the states bordering the Gulf of Mexico, but that creates a hazard for the Carribean and Central/South American countries if a rocket blows up. 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.

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.