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.
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.
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?
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?).
In that case it would be a destination fee...
love is just extroverted narcissism
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'.
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
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.
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.
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.
billions of my tax dollars went into making these things possible.
My god, you must be either the richest person on slashdot, or you have the worst tax accountant.
It would have to be both, rich people normally only pay a small token amount of taxes.
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.
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"
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...
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.
No, it's actually a brilliant idea. If we take ODOTs rate of 1.5 cents/mile as representative and take, say, Voyager's distance travelled of 1.2 x 10e10 miles as an example, that's 1,800,000,000 dollars just from that one spacecraft. Spread that over all spacecraft and CA could balance its budget in one fell swoop.
We've got your power generation and a large chunk of your semiconductor business. Now give us your space industry.
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.
Yet somehow they provide the majority of all taxes collected. In 2012, the top 1% paid an average rate of 22% (the highest) and provided almost 40% of all taxes, top 5% accounted for almost 60% of collected taxes. Paying an average rate of 21%.
https://taxfoundation.org/summ...
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.
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".
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."
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.
No, their proposed tax stops at 60,000 feet, where they simply lack any jurisdiction. And the last I looked, rockets spent much of their initial launch path going up more than sideways.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
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.
...are there enough WOMEN in the space industry?
We need another tax, probably on penises.
-Styopa
Just wait until they realize they worded this tax rule wrong and they get to tax fireworks launches.
I call it organized crime, you call it government
No, their proposed tax stops at 60,000 feet, where they simply lack any jurisdiction.
Arguably the destination is inter-state, inter-planetary, they lack ANY jurisdiction, as soon as the vehicle is in the federal airway which starts at about 700 feet AGL.
So how to do they plan to handle the case of a launch where the first stage returns to a pad on the launch site, but the payload goes into space? Which mileage do they use? Is the distance measured from the launch site to the landing site, or some arbitrary point in space for each half of the flight?
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
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.
From a point of reference. Which I assume would be the launch point.
Anything fun (that flies or goes boom) is already illegal in California. It's usually a tinderbox by the 4th of July.
Good damn hippies are even considering banning professional displays. Not that it matters, illegal it might be, but not enforced at all. But not like when I was a kid, when the whole city would be a fog of black powder smoke, that was cool.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
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).
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
Vandenberg AFB is federal land, so wouldn't that mean the origin is out of jurisdiction as well?
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.
Would someone please step in and save us California residents from our inane "government"?
It's gone completely insane.
Next, the'll tax air.
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.
It's a possibility. Under certain conditions, the State itself cannot even apply sales tax for business operating on federal land, or tax a House, car built on federal land in the state, Etc, Let-alone tax mileage. The level of federal jurisdiction over federally-owned real property varies,
depending on when the federal government acquired it, whether the president chose to accept exclusive jurisdiction in
the transfer, and whether congress passed a law allowing local the state to tax or have some kind of authorities over that land.
OK, but make sure to pay the 50% leaving town tax!!
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.
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
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.'"
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.
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.