Taxing Sci-Fi Products to Fund NASA? 608
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."
Wrong! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Wrong! (Score:2)
Re:Wrong! (Score:2)
Re:Wrong! (Score:2)
Re:Wrong! (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Wrong! (Score:4, Insightful)
Think of voting as moderating on a massive scale.
Re:Wrong! (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's turn it around: Geeky stuff should be taxed 1% per year and the funds thus collected should be paid to GeekPAC. Lessee, what to tax.. computers and components, software (let's tax free software by the byte) and interent access all fall under "geeky stuff".
Oh, so the RIAA buys lots of computers and net access for their office workers, but doesn't appreciate being FORCED to support someone else's special interest group? Too bad.
And as to starving geeks who can't afford yet another tax? Tough shit. Do without.
[/sarcasm]
As to the, um, freethinker who rated my initial comment as "flamebait" -- I wrote nothing but the exact truth. If you've got a convincing argument as to why I should be penalized with a special-interest tax, I want to hear it.
Tellya what.. when I see Jerry Pournelle again (probably tomorrow, in fact) I'll ask him what HE thinks of such ideas. That oughta be good for a laugh.
Taxes, once instituted, ALWAYS creep upward. Very much like erosions of civil liberties. Foot in the door, and all that.
Re:Wrong! (Score:5, Insightful)
vaguely interested in the welfare program. So why should *I* be taxed for it??"
Same could be applied for nearly every government program.
Well (Score:3, Insightful)
Why should we be forced to have our money sent to airport companies for a bailout? We spent 20 billion dollars bailing them out!
You are right, interest should decide how much is spent on where, however we dont have a true democracy, we are a republic and thats going against the nature of the government itself.
You allow US to decide where the money goes, and most of the people in the government and congress will be out of a job.
Re:Well (Score:3, Interesting)
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!!!
Re:Well (Score:2, Interesting)
perfect solution (Score:2)
I'd rather have a complete democracy than a republic
Republic is exactly the problem with government, if it is a democracy, then its no longer big brother, its us.
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
Ooops, did we mention sense and gov't together? Silly citizens, thinking they have a say in the gov't!
Re:Well (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
Re:Wrong! (Score:2, Flamebait)
By this proposal's logic.. hmm, let's find a really broad example: Let's tax nonwhites to fund "Equal Opportunity" programs.
Ooops, that'll really get 'em going
Re:Wrong! (Score:3, Interesting)
If whites are the oppressors whites should pay for programs to solve problems THEY have caused.
Its almost like the RIAAs idea of making IT industry solve their problem of piracy.
Re:Wrong! (Score:2)
Re:Wrong! (Score:2)
Then again, seems I wrote what is turning out to be the majority sentiment.
Re:Wrong! (Score:2)
(BTW, I never mod down; I prefer to spend my points more productively
Re:Wrong! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Lottery revenues (Score:3, Informative)
Of course, the schools in CA have been fscked for decades now, ever since Proposition 13 passed, which made it damn near impossible to get more property tax revenue for anything.
In Colorado, Lottery revenues (including, since last summer, Powerball) go towards parks, and actually seem to have done some good. Guess the state wasn't funding parks very much for awhile...
Eric
Strangely, this could be kinda cool (Score:5, Interesting)
Probably end up about 15X NASA's budget
Re:Strangely, this could be kinda cool (Score:5, Insightful)
Only problem with this kind of thing is that once it gets started we'll be seeing a condom tax for sex flicks, needy kids tax for disney flicks, church reparations for demonic flicks, stoner tax on jay and silent bob flicks for drug rehab programs... where do you draw the line?
Re:Strangely, this could be kinda cool (Score:2)
I thought the general idea was that those going to sex flicks wouldn't have a use for condoms in the first place
The sad thing is... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
No. (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:No. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
I agree and disagree too. (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Bomb shelter? (Score:2, Insightful)
How would a bomb shelter have any effect on you surviving a terrorist nuclear attack? Do you plan to live there?
yet not a single bomb shelter, no way to stop a biological attack, no way to stop nuclear attacks, no way to stop terrorist attacks like 911.
Guess what? That's because there is no way to stop loonies like that. How will you ever defend against the possibility of two guys with a backpack nuclear bomb blowing up New York? Perhaps we should outlaw backpacks?
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.
Re:Bomb shelter? (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
Re:The sad thing is... (Score:4, Insightful)
For the price of a ticket to see Mission to Mars, the collective base of US taxpayers can finance a real mission, or at least a good try at one. But instead, we choose to complain about "*my* money being wasted" (your words). We as contemporary Americans do not seem to place a significant value on the amounts of money being discussed, until NASA has an accident with it.
Re:Strangely, this could be kinda cool (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's take this a step or two further and see how it could be applied in other areas.
Taxing copies of 2000 Leagues Under the Sea to fund deep sea research.
Taxing Rambo movies to fund military programs.
Taxing copies of the Bible to fund christian charities.
Taxing snow sports to fund research in Antarctica.
It's just too contrived. Of course, it doesn't sound like it will get anywhere near Washington anyway.
Well, another idea (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Well, another idea (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Well, another idea (Score:2)
So what you'd have is rich CEOs, and middle class teenagers in the suburbs, along with a few atheletes payinng for the majority of the welfare and foodstamp market.
he who makes the majority of the money, pays the majority of the taxes.
And going to college got you..... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:And going to college got you..... (Score:2)
Re:And going to college got you..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And going to college got you..... (Score:2, Troll)
uhh (Score:3, Insightful)
A store manager is not some shitty job. These people are in charge of hundreds of employees, millions in merchandise and millions in cash. Not to mention an entire giant building which needs electricity, HVAC, the floors and bathrooms need to be clean all the time, plus all of the tools like meat slicers, ovens, freezers, cash registers, accounting, payroll, scheduling, sales, bitchy customers, etc etc. I can go on, but I think you get the point.
Yes, working at a grocery store is not a regular job. It is much more challenging. So get a life you unwise person.
Re:uhh (Score:3, Insightful)
Many of them were in their mid-30s to early 40s. A lot suffered with alcoholism, most were single or divorced, and I've never seen such politics in any other place that I've worked. The union controlled where people went when promoted, so everyone would bitch about how much they worked and how little others did. Many considered their job right up there with saving the world.
The job pretty much boiled down to this: you go there, put shit on shelves, put price tags on them, repeat until shift is over. Many of the issues you stated (like payroll) were all handled by computers and the corporate office. All it took was a little bit of data entry. Sure, the people weren't morons, but I wouldn't exactly call it a job where the sky is the limit.
Re:And going to college got you..... (Score:2)
I had never met such a bunch of idiots in my life, they would spend the whole fucking day arguing over and over the most inane things. As an example when I left for uni and work one morning, they were having a discussion about whether or not taking a cell-phone on a camping trip was a good idea. When I came home 6 hours later they were still arguing over it! It was like this for the entire year! To top things off, he couldn't afford to pay his rent but thought nothing of using the flat bank account for buying fresh basil plants. Yes basil. At least I know why Governments are so slow to get things done.
I won't say anything about business management as my girlfriend has an MBA
Re:And going to college got you..... (Score:2)
What would you say are the chances that the person collecting the shopping carts from the parking lot is a member of the CoC? This guy may be nuts, but he probably holds a decent job.
Re:And going to college got you..... (Score:2)
Besides, don't most PoliSci master's become politicians? So, it looks like he's getting plenty out of his education--he's just working at the grocery store also. That could be good for his political career--he is in touch with his constituents.
Anyway, you must not be a college graduate.
1% from... (Score:2)
Not a good idea (Score:2)
Re:Not a good idea (Score:2)
let drugs pay for it (Score:2, Funny)
Re:let drugs pay for it (Score:2)
What happens to all the drugs the government gathers when they do drug busts?
What a nightmare (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Re:What a nightmare (Score:3, Funny)
I think you should take that one step further with the 'Techlogist Pain and Suffering' tax, where those
Re:What a nightmare (Score:2)
Ermmm, aliens, yeah...
I personally favour the idiot tax
I think you just qualified for that yourself buddy.
Cynic's Take: (Score:2)
Yeah! Tax the people who care! (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Re:Yeah! Tax the people who care! (Score:2)
Maybe because in countries with lots of guns, we're also better at determining who needs a good killing, and thus common sense is matched with ready means.
Of course (Score:2)
Tax it ALL!!! (Score:2)
We can fund the whole planet on book sales!!!!!
kd [y-intercept.com]
This is not how government works (Score:2, Insightful)
There is also a great deal of overlap within government projects. For example, much NASA research would be applied to a missile shield, but many science aficionados are strictly against such a project. If you operate under the idea that we should pay only for what we support, then I most certainly will not pay for a shield, which thus means not paying for NASA in the first place.
~Kumomancer
This is stupid. (Score:2)
Here's an idea: fund the space program with a tax on organizations that USE the space program. Want to launch a satellite? Pay your NASA tax, they paved the way. Your satellite needs a repair? Call NASA, and have your checkbook ready.
Why should sci-fi readers foot the bill for a program that greases the wheels for telecom companies, DirecTV, spaceimaging.com et al? Why can't they (and their customers) pay their own freakin' way?
Good crack about supermarkets (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Enforcement? (Score:3, Funny)
Is Kurzweil's book SciFi?
What about fantasy genre? Is that taxable, or are the flying dragons taxes exempt?
Re:Enforcement? (Score:2)
Me, I'm gonna be trimming the wings on my next dragon, to keep him strictly suborbital. Wouldn't want to get hit with a tax for some interplanetary route I never use.
Just give NASA charity status (Score:2, Interesting)
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
--
Okay then. (Score:2)
In any event, the idea isn't so great. Making the unfortunate people without social lives pay for space exploration would only be fair if they introduced a ton of other user fees -- for example, introducing more toll roads for drivers or taxing people who buy copies of Marvin Gaye's "Let's Get It On" for the cost of educating the children which result.
And for those of you who say NASA's money should go to social programs, I ask you this: Where would America's poor be without Tang? Huh? Smart guy?
Beware: Politicians are smarter than slashdotters (Score:5, Insightful)
intelligence != common sense
intelligence != good judgement
Does Huntsville, Alabama ring a bell? (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, and he does sound like a freak-o dweeb.
Other great tax ideas (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Other great tax ideas (Score:2)
Re:Other great tax ideas (Score:2)
So here's the problem in a nutshell: The people that are interested tend to get benefits from the programs. Thus the programs are funded by those who get the benefits. This sounds an awful lot like the private sector....which leads to why don't we just privatize all these programs to begin with?
Or, we could just leave it the way it is, where public sector research benefits everyone. Yes, NASA is generally pretty interested in space, but the output of the space missions has brought us all sorts of other side benefits. Satellite television. Bar codes. Smoke detectors. Invisible orthodontic braces. Edible toothpaste!
Tang!
Where the hell would we be without Tang?
whoa. digression
Anyhow, as long as the benefits of the programs, even edible toothpaste, are spread far and wide, then the general public can pay for them, not just those dreaming of having a pet dragon that will someday grok them in fullness.
-transiit
Re:Other great tax ideas (Score:2)
wait a minute I think I'm on to something. We could give wellfare to everyone. As long as you pay for it yourself.
Re:Other great tax ideas (Score:2)
Thats fine how about the army, law enforcement etc (Score:2)
I'm ok with funding NASA like this but only if everything else was funded like this too.
If NASA is the only thing thats funded like this it seems like another trick to redirect resources.
Bush used that trick, trillion dollar tax cut yet an increased military budget, increased spending, putting us in debt, oh and we lose out on stuff like social security.
Tax cuts are fine if we learn to use the money we have more efficiently. If not, tax cuts end up hurting us.
Re:Thats fine how about the army, law enforcement (Score:2)
It hurts to know that where I live we have reduced tax on hollywood movies to support culture.
Re:Thats fine how about the army, law enforcement (Score:2)
and while their at it, cut, or seriously limit medicare. 85% of medicare spending goes to patients in the last months of their life. 90yr old women DO NOT need total hip replacements.
Legality? (Score:2)
Can Congress actually leverage a sales tax?
I know that Congress has jurisdiction over interstate commerce, but if I buy a locally-produced sci-fi product, well, Congress doesn't have the Constitutional right to tax me on that.
Remember, boys and girls, they had to get an amendment just to do that silly income tax.
Re:Legality? (Score:2)
You all have no idea how nice it is to walk into a store, buy something for 99 cents and not have to dig around for a bit of pocket change along with that dollar bill.
--- a delaware resident
Stupid is as stupid does (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
War vs. Space (Score:2)
Besides the visible, military function of war, there are several nonmilitary functions; those critical to transition (to peace) can be summarized in five principal groupings:
ECONOMIC. War has provided both ancient and modern societies with a dependable system for stabilizing and controlling national economies. No alternate method of control has yet been tested in a complex modern economy that has shown itself remotely comparable in scope or effectiveness. A large space program, however, could possibly provide the same effect, provided it used enough resources.
POLITICAL. The permanent possibility of war is the foundation for stable government; it supplies the basis for general acceptance of political authority. It has enabled societies to maintain necessary class distinctions, and it has ensured the subordination of the citizen to the state, by virtue of the residual war powers inherent in the concept of nationhood. No modern political ruling group has successfully controlled its constituency after failing to sustain the continuing credibility of an external threat of war. But under one world government, a political system could be built soley around the exploration and mapping of space.
SOCIOLOGICAL. War, through the medium of military institutions, has uniquely served societies, throughout the course of known history, as an indispensible controller of dangerous social dissidence and destructive antisocial tendencies. As the most formidable of threats to life itself, and as the only one susceptible to mitigation by social organization alone, it has played another equally fundamental role: the war system has provided the machinery through which the motivational forces governing human behavior have been translated into binding social allegiance. It has thus ensured the degree of social cohesion necessary to the viability of nations. No other institution, or groups of institutions, in modern societies, has successfully served these functions. Except space travel.
ECOLOGICAL. War has been the principal evolutionary device for maintaining a satisfactory ecological balance between gross human population and supplies available for its survival. It is unique to the human species.
CULTURAL AND SCIENTIFIC. War-orientation has determined the basic standards of value in the creative arts, and has provided the fundamental motivational source of scientific and technological progress. The concepts that the arts express values independent of their own forms and that the successful pursuit of knowledge has intrinsic social value have long been accepted in modern societies; the development of the arts and sciences during this period has been corollary to the parallel development of weaponry. Since the space race, space travel has been driving forward technology even faster than war; communications satellites, computers, nutrition, the list is endless.
Obviously, war is very important to society. So, in a society without war, a suitable replacement for these "non-military" functions of war must be found.
One of the best possible substitute institutions is a large space program.
First Amendment? (Score:5, Interesting)
Patent sci-fi? (Score:2, Funny)
Good, but not good enough (Score:2, Insightful)
When the Soviets launched Sputnik, the world's first artificial satellite, the US government felt challenged to respond. The result was NASA receiving about 1% of US government revenue to land the first men on the Moon.
But there was another way that was overlooked. A consortium of Bechtel Engineering (builders of the Hoover Dam and other massive projects) and Disney (Walt was in charge in those days) could have done the Apollo Project without government funding -- and made money by doing so.
I applaud this as an attempt to come up with an imaginative approach to Space funding. That said, I'd suggest folks keep looking.
Science fiction has been subsidizing Space development for years by giving it ideas. Consider then extreme case of Arthur C. Clarke, who gave the world the concept of telecommunication satellites. Rather than patent the idea, Clarke included the idea in a science fiction story. By putting the concept into public domain in this way, Clarke personally subsidized the Space sector to the tune of billions of dollars by not requiring royalties from everyone who uses them.
What about industries that owe everything to NASA? (Score:2, Insightful)
They should really be paying, as the stuff that NASA develops eventually filters down to the high-tech companies to use in new products.
Now, I'd sure like to do my part in adding to NASA's budget, since I think NASA is doing a fantastic job and gets little or no recognition. So if a "scifi" tax got implemented I don't think I'd be against it.
What bothers me is people often find it hard to give NASA money (eg, politicians), because of the "oh, we've been to the moon, and walked in space, what else is there?" mentality.
But that's exactly the point! What else is there, and what can we learn?
Just look at history... limiting space budget only hurts us. We could already have had a colony on Mars for 10 years if it wasn't for cutbacks after we went to the moon.
Everyone benefits from NASA (Score:2)
This type of tax unfairly burdens those who are interested in a subject with paying for it, when everyone reaps the rewards.
I pay plenty already for stuff I DON'T want (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Why Targeted Taxes aren't always such a good idea (Score:2, Insightful)
It's that everyone benefits. If they only let us Sci-Fi geeks reap the rewards then sure, tax only us 1%. But if I see a none Sci-Fi person using the next great intellectual property to come out of NASA, I'm going to be pissed.
"Hey, the Sci-Fi people paid for that space age coating on that pan! Hand it over!"
That's why responsible targeted taxes are used to pay for the costs of the tax payer, in theory at least. Such as taxing cigarettes to pay for health costs.
Uh, never mind (Score:2)
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.
"But then I thought about the administrative nightmare some more, and I realized something - I was right the first time. My mistake, sorry."
NASA should be broken up (Score:2)
So What's Next (Score:2)
In addition to the NASA contributions, perhaps the US Government could levy an extra 1% on sales of learning toys for educationally subnormal adults and give the money straight to President Bush?
Military stuff, too? (Score:4, Funny)
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?
Why not a Nasa LOTTERY? (Score:4, Interesting)
makes no sense at all.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Where will it end (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Space vs SciFi (Score:2)
My bad....
To all you people in Alabama: don't elect this crap
Re: Mars should not be a priority (Score:5, Insightful)
Kintanon
BS (Score:2)
Re:Moon base (Score:2, Insightful)
A Mars mission would be a big fanfare for those who like to see people saluting flags, but not for long-term space exploration. It would suck up funding from everything else in sight, and TV coverage would be cancelled by the 2nd week. After that, no more funding. What's the point of flag-waving if no-one is watching?
Anyway, who said space had to be all gosh-wow? Is the welfare program gosh-wow? Are farming subsidies gosh-wow? Why should space exploration be any different? I was struck this morning by the low-key, no fanfare approach of the launch from Baikonur. No countdown, and about as much fuss as launching a boat. That's what we need - willingness to get the job done, without need for spectacle and fanfare.
In order to insulate the space industry from reliance on fanfare, we need to get it self-funding as quickly as possible, and asteroid mining is the most obvious medium-term objective.
I say skip the moon. It's still at the bottom of a hole, and the regolith on the moon is poorer as ore than the slag we throw away from refining plants on Earth.
Therefore, I propose a cancellation of all manned Mars mission plans and instead concentrate on sending an automated factory to a NEO by 2025.
It should create something useful in Earth orbit (solar cells? steel girders? fuel? water?) and launch a package or packages back to LEO for less money than it would have taken to get them up there from Earth in the first place.
Also, scrap the shuttle and contract out to commercial launch companies. Award development grants and incentives for cheap launch technology.
And above all, let's stamp on the meme that Space = NASA. It doesn't.
Re:Only tax the *BAD* Sci-Fi (Score:2)
Problem number two is that even if there was a way to fairly measure good or bad scifi, it still wouldn't stop scifi from getting made. Look at cigarettes. Those are taxed, people still buy them.
Personally, I'd rather pay extra to watch Scifi and have that money go towards Nasa etc rather than try to vote for the right guy to make sure Nasa gets well funded. Being able to directly say what areas I want funded with my tax money is a right I'd take advantage of TODAY.
Re:if it'll enlarge NASA's badget, it's good (Score:2)
Well thats why we have had tax cuts (Score:2)
Welfare reform (our way of giving up on the unemployed)
We have state by state homeless solutions, some have none, some states have homeless shelters, the federal government doesnt solve this.
According to most republicans and capitalists, its every man for himself, no helping the homeless, no taxes at all etc.
Its up to the people, while the people voted for gore, bush is president, bush cut taxes by about a trillion dollars, most of this money is taken from welfare, helping the homeless, social security and other freebies and put into the military
Re:Watch what you ask for (Score:2)
Because they're so busy trying to compile their kernel and write crappy Microsoft look-alike programs for Lunix that they don't have time to have a job. Although it's interesting that the l33t Lunix h4XX0rz in your area actually leave their parents' basements to beg for money; most of the h4XX0rz that live in my area do it online.