Los Angeles County To Tax Outer Space 165
paladino writes: "The LA County Tax Collectors office wants to collect property taxes from Huges Electronics for the value of their satellites orbiting the earth. They say 'satellites are no different from other movable personal property that he has authority to tax.'" Perhaps LA will need to open a lot for satellites confiscated for non-payment, too. See also The Man Who Owned the Moon by Robert A. Heinlein. Update: 07/11 02:02 PM by J : OK, OK, it's The Man Who Sold the Moon - blame me for this one. Timothy foolishly trusted my brain. /me runs memtest86 on his cranium
Re:Victory is near.. (Score:1)
Re:More like an offshore thing. (Score:1)
freighters often carry Panamanian registry, if they travel through the Panama canal often. This has something to do with making the paperwork easier entering and leaving Panamanian territory.
as far as taxes go, I don't think they have anything to do with the ship's registry. the ship is owned by a corporation, and that corporation is incorporated in one or more countries and/or states. If a company does business in many different countries or states, each one can apply their individual tax laws as they see fit. Otherwise, they revoke the corporate charter and the corp can't do business there anymore.
Assess County Assessor Auerbach's own webpage! (Score:1)
http://www.library.ucla.edu/libraries/mgi/campaign /2000/la/general/assess/auerbach/website/ [ucla.edu].
Amazingly enough, he doesn't have a degree in science.
Just wait until he discovers LEO satellites...
This post is informative, but since I'm not going to create an account no moderator will ever read it or moderate it up.
Err. (Score:2)
Re:Err. (Score:3)
Y'know, I was going to start arguing against the taxation of such items on the basis of the chill this would put on putting stuff in orbit, but since the article mentions they're for broadcasting:
If those satellites are in any way responsible for spreading yet more RealityTV crap around the Earth, I say tax them into the ground.
Re:L.A. needs to do the math... (Score:2)
Re:Better tell NASA (Score:2)
However, if they treat space as an exception...
Re:if you are a US citizen or green card holder... (Score:1)
Re:Better tell NASA (Score:1)
Now, as you say, this is a stupid precedent to be setting and I hope LA gets slapped for trying it. I would expect any kind of space tourism to happen only outside the jurisdication of counties that conduct business like this, perhaps offshore.
Typical politician (Score:3)
Lemme think (Score:1)
Unless any of these services are being provided to a Hughes satellite in orbit, why the hell should they pay anything in property taxes?
"intellectist" perhaps (Score:2)
hawk
Re:Relocation costs vs. New Tax Costs = No moving (Score:2)
>into LA because of the taxes
Give the man a cigar. He just figured out the economics of a minimum wage increase, which works precisely this way.
Every time Congress increases the minimum wavge, one side of the aisle gets up and shouts that massive job loss will occur, while the other shouts that nothing will happen. Immediately after the increase, someone from the second side (Usually Ted Kennedy) loudly pronounces that there has been no job loss. Six months to a year later, though, the employment level has indead dropped. *exisiting* minimum wage employees are rarely fired after an increase, as their training costs hyave already been born. On the ohter hand, some of the jobs go unfilled when emptied, and others are never created.
THis is the aexact same thing. Once a firm has incurred sunk costs, you can tax it up to about that amount, and it stays put. But if you do this, no firm in its right mind will open a plant in your area.
hawk, wearing his econ professor hat
Re:Relocation costs vs. New Tax Costs = No moving (Score:2)
>proof.
Read almost any labor economics journal, almost any issue
The wage elasticity of labordemand is well known. If memory serves, it's about -.15 in the U.S.
Specifically, see the debunking in the last issue of American Economic Review of last year, which manages to remain polite while pointing out the flaws/sloppieness/incompetence in the kruger/card study claiming that increasing the minimum wage in New Jersy increased fastfood employment. It's just not an issue that's in dispute among serious economists.
>OTOH, I have seen school teachers living on welfare, because their
>wage puts them so far below the poverty level. (And no, they didn't
>have cadillacs
>inherited [but I'm not sure].)
Underpaid or not, teachers are *nowhere* near the minimum wage . .
>So the evidence that I've seen indicates the a wage level that is too
>low increases the need for welfare.
The problem here is the assum[ption that the job will still exist with a higher minimum wage (or that other jobs would still increase if the wage were forced upwards). In the long term, the answer is "no, the employment level drops," which puts more people on welfare.
>But the real point is, if the minimum wage is so low that one can't
>live on it, even when being frugal, then it is unjust.
The problem is that an employer just plain can't pay $10/hr for a job that only produces $5/hr.
Just/unjust doesn't change the productivity of the position. A solution that *doesn't* wipe out the jobs would be for someone other than the employer (probably the government) to supplement the wage--but this gets ugly, fast.
Also, in general, people don't stay at the minimum wage very long. It'sgenerally a first/reentry/teenager job, though there are exceptions. However, the pool of people who make the minimum wage in the long term is very, very, small compared to the labor force.
hawk
Re:Relocation costs vs. New Tax Costs = No moving (Score:2)
>Actually the experience of the UK and France when minimum wage laws
>were introduced was that unemployment fell.
THere were a *lot* of other things going on a that time. Attributing a
causal relation with a one-time change at that point in history is
just plain reckless . . .
>The mechanism is direct and acknowledged by the right when the
subject
>of the argument are the super-rich. The super rich (aka the 'wealth
>creators') the argument goes will respond to tax cuts by working
>harder, earning more money. The increasingly enriched pleutocracy
will
>then spend more money creating demand for 'stuff'. It is called the
>trickle down theory, to improve the lot of those at the bootm of
>society you have to give more gravy to those at the top and let it
>trickle down to the poor.
That's not how trickle down is supposed to help. The theory is that
instead of consuming, folks at this level invest, creating greater
demand for labor and higher wages.
This certainly happens, but there is an empirical question as to
whether the net gain for the lower end is more or less than the amount
given to hte upper. Also, this generally isn't in the context of
"giving" money to the rich, but in that of not taking enough. There is
certainly a tax rate that is counter productive (would *you* work with
a 100% income tax? How about 99%?), but I've ne er seen a serious
attempt at locating that rate. Democrats always insist we're below
that rate, Republicans insist we're above it, and a few of us get
ignored while hollering from the sidelines that it should be measured
. . . However, I'm certainly more receptive to the notion that
lowering tax rates that were high enough to choke off economic
activity will help the poor than the notion that in an efficient
economy lowering tax rates on the rich will help the poor (although
it's indisputable that there is *some* gain to the poor, I doubt that
it's as much help as sending them a government check in the same
amoutn as the
tax cut). Still, I'd be willing to look at hard numbers in either
direction.
>The flaw in the trickle down theory is that for folk in my income
>bracket expenditure is a very weak function of after their after tax
>income. If I make double what I made the year before I do not double
>my expenditure, or anything like it. I spend less than 10% of my
>income.
And what do you do with the rest? Eat it?
trickel-down argument is that the money is invested, causing a net
investment in new capital, increasing the demand for labor. Increased
current consumption is *not* what drives it. And again, it's an
empirical qquestion; there is certainly some gain for the poor, but
the question is whetehr they'd be better off with the untrickled
money.
>Poor folk save very little, if they get more money they spend it. And
>that expands the economy.
yes, they save little, spending all. Which is why trickle down
suggests that they're the wrong ones to give the money
hawk, again poinging out that he is not arguing for trickle down, but
explaining it [but will still doubtless get flamed and misunderstood
:) ]
Re:Relocation costs vs. New Tax Costs = No moving (Score:2)
> inevitably lead to unemployment. I was merely pointing out that the
^^^^^^^^^^
> facts disprove your assertion, a causal connection was superfluous.
I said nothing of the sort. I said that increasing the minimum wage increases unemployment, which has been born out by every study ever conducted other than a couple of discredited cranks.
The "facts" that you point out are analogous to claiming that the ascent of an airplan disproves an assertion of gravity. There's something else happening at the same time that has a stronger effect.
> As for what the right wing argument is, I have not heard the
> 'investment' theory of trickle down hald as often as the consumption theory.
There is no consumption theory. When you here it as a consumption issue, it's either coming from someone who didn't understand the issue but latched onto the predicted result, or a journalist misstating something that he didn't understand.
>But in any case the investment theory is pretty hard to
>sustain. Capital is not a scarce resource. Up until 6 months ago it
>was possible to get pretty much unlimited funds for any Internet
>related project.
whoops. I was taking you seriously until this point; I guess you were just trolling. Just in case you took anyone in, the money that recklessly went into internet startups would have been invested in something else. That there were more dollars foolishly trying to buy *anything* related to the internet than there were available feasible projects in no way suggests that capital is not scarce.
> The availability of investment funds is set by the relative level of
> interest rates, that is why no serious economist would endorse the
> trickle down 'investment' theory.
You *really* need to learn some economics before making claims about what reasonable economists endorse. You seem to be hand-picking bits and pieces of various notions to come up with a package you like. For example, you took the poor spending money as driving the economy straight out of old keynsianism--which holds the savings/investment rate constant, and has the interest rate determined by this amount. Investment returns driving investment is a classical notion (and much more reasonable; there really aren't many kenesians left, but there are plenty of new keynesians and neo keynsians).
Noone who doesn't understand the mechanism by which lower tax rates lead to greater investment and employment will pass his qualifying exams in graduate school. Anyone *rejecting* the notion, other than because the *amount* of benefit to the poor is lest than the foregone revenues, is a crank, not a serious economist. Similarly, anyone *endorsing* it as a policy measure, other than on the grounds that the measured benefit is less than the cost, is similarly a crank.
>If the folk claiming that raising the minimum wage hurts the poor were
>notable champions of the poor on other issues their argument might be
>more credible.
Nonsense. A person's politics and normative economics have absolutely nothing to do with the validity of their positive economics, any more than Schockleys wierd views on race have anything to do with whether the transistor works. All economicists, save a couple of cranks, acknowledge that (outside some theorized pathological cases that have never been demonstrated) an increased minimum wage decreases employment. Furthermore, when the elasticity has been measured, it has been found that generally the *total* wage paid drops slightly. On the other hand, those receving the higher wage are indeed better off. The size of the tradeoff is a postive issue, beyond politics and values. Whether or not this makes the higher wage a better idea is a normative economic issue, for which economists have no claim to better answers than anyone else.
Re:Relocation costs vs. New Tax Costs = No moving (Score:2)
>>increases unemployment, which has been born out by every study ever
>>conducted other than a couple of discredited cranks.
>Cite a single study that is not from a right wing propaganda outfit.
I did. If you think the AER is a right wing propoganda outfit, you seem to have defined right wing as, "anyone not advocagting all my views."
>You have a lot of opinions about what economics professors think. It
>is a pity you don't appear to ever have listened to one.
Gee, you're right. Penn State appointed me as an economics professor due to my complete ignorance of the field . . .
>Clearly there is a level at which a higher minimum wage will create
>unemployment, just as there is a level at which higher taxes will
>reduce the total tax revenues. The evidence suggests that none of the
>Western economies are currently anywhere near either situation, with
>the possible exception of some of the Nordic countries.
And the British economy before Thatcher. And possibly the American economy before the Carter tax cut.
>Nonsense. A person's politics and normative economics have absolutely
>nothing to do with the validity of their positive economics,
>A pretty naive view. Economics is not value blind as some proponents
>claim.
When it is not, it fails. Economics can suggest what the choices are, not the correct choice.
Before you can evaluate economic outcomes you have to define
>what your economic goals are.
Absolute nonsense. This is no more true than to say that to evaluate aerodynamic outcomes one must choose whetehr he wants to build a helicopter or an airplane. While the researcher's interest certainly affects *what* he studies, he is a poor scientist if it affects his results.
>That is an intrinsically political
>process and anyone who claims otherwise is either a fool or a liar.
Wow, the pre-emptive ad hominem. That aside, it is only intrinsically political in marxist analysis.
There's really no point continuing this. You seem to have decided that anyone who has views contrary to yours is a right wing hack, fool, or liar . . .
hawk
Re:Come on now (Score:2)
--
Glory to all the Colonies! (Score:1)
Re:Let's get it all over with. (Score:1)
Depends on the jurisdiction. There are areas where you may own the rights to the surface, but not the minerals in the ground or the water. And, the air-rights may not be with the property anymore (yep, companies by the air-rights to put things up over a piece of property).
Basically, if it can be sold, someone will figure out how to do it.
Re:OT: Your sig (Score:1)
http://www.nader.org/interest/11800.html
Re:Let's get it all over with. (Score:1)
Technically you're right about the "space" we own constantly changing, but from a legal standpoint, I guarantee you that theory wouldn't hold much water.
Re:Or not. This just in... (Score:1)
Someone please mod this up!
hehehh
---
Re:if you are a US citizen or green card holder... (Score:1)
Actually, if you're a holder of a US "green card", and you're living and working in another country, you're supposed to return your greencard. Yes, that's right: "permanent resident" status only lasts as long as you really are a resident of the US. If you leave the US to live elsewhere, you're supposed to give it up. INS officials routinely confiscate the greencards of non-US residents who try to return to the US.
Oh, and the US has tax treaties with a few other countries. These treaties can affect your income tax. For example, I believe a US citizen living in Canada only has to pay Canadian income tax, not US income tax (of course, Canadian income tax is actually somewhat higher than US income tax).
Re:They don't need to bring it down, they can ... (Score:1)
Re:More like an offshore thing. (Score:2)
Legally speaking, who can say?
Practically speaking, DirecTV gives LA county the finger and moves to Austin or some other municipality that doesn't make a habit of shitting where it eats.
Re:More like an offshore thing. (Score:3)
Trust me, Hughes isn't going to relocate a huge amount of employees and equipment just because of the added taxes on these satellites.
You're right - they'll probably just move the equipment and a few employees. The rest will be left wondering what the hell happened.
Victory is near.. (Score:1)
Re:Taxes on assets? (Score:1)
That's just bizarre and incredibly damaging to capitalism. Indeed usually the opposite is true and the more assets a company has, the more depreciation it can assess each year, the less taxes it pays. The idea that the more a company owns physically the more taxes it pays is a sure way to send companies packing to a nicer municipality.
Re:Taxes on assets? (Score:1)
Taxes don't make money out of nowhere, and imposing them at 5000 different layers doesn't help feed the poor or shelter the homeless: Instead it helps to pay the overwhelming mass of unnecessary government bureaucrats helping to ensure that a consumer product that costs $500 has $400 of various taxes added at 50 points along the way.
Company A makes widgets and they cost $200/unit to produce, and company A is a corporate "welfare" recipient so they pay no taxes. They sell the product at $220/unit.
Company B makes widgets and they cost $200/unit to produce, but because of wankers like LA County's tax officer, they pay approximately $50/unit in taxes per year. They sell the product at $270/unit.
Re:Taxes on assets? (Score:1)
Which juristictions do this? The idea of property taxes, as mentioned in another post, is that they get services for their taxes : Firemen, policemen, garbage pickup, etc. Obvious these services don't apply whatsoever to a satellite, nor would LA taxes apply if I had a company based in LA but we owned property in Vancouver. Property taxes don't apply to things like vehicles (though there are other types of taxes for them) or other assets. Generally the idea is that you pay a consumption tax when you buy it, you can get a tax break as it depreciates, and you pay a tax if you sell it at a gain (capital gain). I've never heard of taxing an asset just because you have it (apart from bogus licensing and other such fees).
Re:to some extent, yes (Score:1)
Living in Canada I find it very hard to believe that the people of CA tolerate this. While Canada is often cast as the overtaxed empire, the reality is that taxes are generally quite simple here : You get taxed on your income, and likewise companies get taxed on their profits. You get taxed when you "consume", which is when you purchase items like cars, gasoline, etc. You get taxed if you make income by selling items at more than you bought them (which is capital gains income and applies to stocks, property, etc. There are lots of loopholes though). All in all it is a very simple system, and if you removed yourself from society the tax system wouldn't be pecking you to death for everything you own, etc.
I could see that California probably justifies the car tax as a "roadway tax" or the like, however up here that is achieved by taxes on gasoline. Indeed that makes more sense because gas taxes directly correlate with your vehicles use of the roads (or in the cast of larger vehicles, the lower MPG means more taxes paid means compensation for the additional damage of the heavier vehicle).
Re:More like an offshore thing. (Score:1)
The impact of the additional tax on these satellites will be miniscule compared to the property taxes that Hughes already pays on its facilities in the area.
They must have some incredible facilities, because at $100 million a pop, that's more than all but the most massive and most extravagent of giant office building complexes.
Re:More like an offshore thing. (Score:1)
Don't know if I agree with that. In the case of rare or hostile-environment items, the intrinsic value is increased dramatically because of the shipment costs. For instance a moon rock is only a piece of dirt theoretically worth next to nothing, but because it came from the moon the "shipping" (hence the natural rarity of it) makes it worth significantly more. You might build a basic data relay satellite for $100,000, but because launching it costs $90,000,000 there is no way that you would sell it for less than $90,000,000 : The fact that it is sitting in space makes it worth that much more, because anyone else who wants to be there has to pay the same shipping costs.
Taxes on assets? (Score:2)
I understand and appreciate taxes on profits, and can see how taxes on properties in a municipality makes sense (different levels of government getting their cut), but taxes on assets? Do they tax each companies vehicles & computers?
This just sounds bizarre if they're trying to say that satellites are property in the same sense as a plot of land on Main Street.
Re:Florida Tried to do this to IBM a while back (Score:3)
It's so very Douglas Adams-esque.
"And so, in early 21st century, the primative earthlings decided to leave their little ball of mud and venture into outer space - mostly for tax reasons."
But didn't Einstein say... (or was it Newton) (Score:4)
W
-------------------
Range of their jurisdiction? (Score:1)
Or not. This just in... (Score:5)
Tuesday July 10 7:46 PM ET
L.A. May Be Shot Down in Bid to Tax Satellites
By Dan Whitcomb
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Los Angeles officials seeking to impose property taxes on space satellites were brought back down to Earth on Tuesday when a state board moved toward declaring satellites beyond the reach of even the tax collector.
But Los Angeles County Assessor Rick Auerbach said he was not yet ready to scrap the proposed tax and would consider a court challenge if he finds that the California State Board of Equalization has circumvented state or federal law.
It was Auerbach who determined that eight communications satellites owned by Hughes Electronics Corp.(NYSE:GMH - news) and currently in geostationary orbit 22,300 miles over Earth's equator were taxable as movable property that was currently out of state, similar to construction equipment.
That decision prompted county officials to consider an assessment on the communications satellites, which are each worth up to $100 million new.
But State Board of Equalization members appeared to short circuit that plan on Tuesday when they voted 5-0 to ``fast track'' a rule that satellites cannot be taxed, even though Hughes, a unit of GM (NYSE:GM - news), is based in Los Angeles.
The decision came after presentations by Hughes and Auerbach and directs the board's staff to draft a rule declaring the satellites nontaxable. Board members would vote on that proposed rule in the coming months.
George Jamison, a Hughes vice president, said the firm was relieved and pleased by what he called the ``good common sense'' of the board and said they considered the proposed tax a very bad idea from the start.
HUGHES: TAX IS 'LUDICROUS'
``It's ludicrous, absolutely,'' Jamison said. ``It's the type of issue, quite frankly, that causes the company to consider relocating its base of operations to a more business-friendly environment.''
The satellites are not launched from California, do not pass over California while in orbit and will never return to the state, instead becoming space junk, he said.
``We think the ruling is important,'' Jamison said. ``These spacecraft are not be in the state of California, have never been in the state of California during their useful lives and will never be in the state of California in the future.''
Auerbach conceded that the board members ``have made up their mind already that the property is not taxable,'' but said the issue was not necessarily dead because he had researched the case and found legal opinions supporting his position.
``I'll have to see what basis they have for the rule,'' Auerbach said. ``If I believe it's improper (under the) U.S. Constitution and and state statutes my option is to go to Superior Court.''
``I have to keep an open mind,'' Auerbach said. ``Based on the opinions I have I think it still looks taxable.''
Auerbach insisted that he was not pushing for a tax on the satellites but was simply doing his job and trying to determine whether they should be taxed.
``I'm neutral on the whole thing,'' he said. ``My job is to make sure all property that's taxable gets assessed and I'm going to follow the law. If the law says its not taxable it's not taxable. If it is taxable I will assess it.''
One little problem with trickle-down (Score:1)
Actually it's more often used to justify tax cuts, arguing that the trickle-down effects of a tax cut putting more money into circulation will result in a larger economy and hence the government will actually collect more money in taxes at the lower tax rate.
That's nice in theory. But if my taxes were cut, that extra money would not go into the economy, it would go into my retirement investments. And that is advice you can take to the bank.
Since you got me started on trickle-down, let's see where all that money goes.
If I pay it in taxes, most of it goes to debt service (read: social security, or non-producers who have to spend every penny to live), defense (underpaid service(wo)men and overpaid defense contractors), funding the operation of government (waste), and various public works and social programs (benefits everyone, in spite of themselves).
If you give me a tax cut, most of the savings goes into the bank, as already established. But suppose it didn't; suppose instead I spent it on luxuries (which I wouldn't). Most (75%) of that money will cover the cost the seller paid for them. Some will go to laborers who probably make less than I do. More will go to the owners, who probably make more than I do. Now go back to that 75% and iterate for the wholesaler, and so on back up the line.
What you will find is a whole lot of low-level workers all getting a little bit of money, and a few people who are already rich getting more. And, going back to my original point, most people who have a financial surplus do not spend 100% of that surplus. It's foolish. And rich people by definition (by construction at least) do not spend their surplus. The more money gets spent, the more accumulates at the top of the economic pyramid. Tax cuts increase the flow of money into the pockets of the rich.
If the size of the economy is what turns you on -- if you really want 100% of the money to stay in the economy -- give it all to the people who don't have enough; they are the ones achieving 100% utilization. Think about it.
Money does not trickle down, it trickles up.
Re:More like an offshore thing. (Score:1)
I'm curious as to why the overall opinion here seems to be very business-friendly: "don't tax them or they'll leave". But Hughes already pays other taxes on its property in the area, and they haven't left. I don't understand the attitude of "please Mr. Big Business, we're really sorry about the whole taxes thing, why don't we just repeal them and you don't have to leave". The impact of the additional tax on these satellites will be miniscule compared to the property taxes that Hughes already pays on its facilities in the area.
AFAIK, it sounds like the assessor understands the law, and everyone on the other side of the issue is just doing some vague hand-waving about how "it's just not right" and how "over-reaching" it is. If it's a bad law, then by all means change it, as long as you're willing to see companies move all sorts of equipment out of LA in order to avoid paying taxes on it. But it sounds like for the moment the tax assessor has Hughes dead to rights.
Trust me, Hughes isn't going to relocate a huge amount of employees and equipment just because of the added taxes on these satellites. They're just bitching because for the moment they've got the support of (uninformed) public opinion.
Re:Taxes on assets? (Score:1)
Why should it be any different for companies than for private citizens? This may be the basic disagreement here, but IMHO taxes are supposed to be progressive. The largest companies gain a huge amount of advantage from the community, and as you said are often able to depreciate much of their tax burden anyway. I think it's reasonable that they be taxed somewhat more than smaller, struggling businesses. After all, corporate behemoths aren't really the result that we necessarily want to encourage, are they?
Re:More like an offshore thing. (Score:1)
Wow, I missed the $100 million figure. Although I imagine they might be able to make the case that $100 million is the launch cost, but the satellite itself (the property) is really worth considerably less. After all, if I had to pay through the nose to buy a classic car and get it shipped to LA, the tax on that property itself is still only going to be based on the actual value of the car, no matter what I paid to get it.
It sounds like they're going to change the law anyway, which will work OK I guess until we get some companies whose only assets are a constellation of satellites. Hmmm, I wonder if the states of IL or AZ ever considered property taxes on Iridium?
Re:L.A. needs to do the math... (Score:2)
Perhaps all places tend to be provincial.
Including this one.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
Re:Relocation costs vs. New Tax Costs = No moving (Score:2)
OTOH, I have seen school teachers living on welfare, because their wage puts them so far below the poverty level. (And no, they didn't have cadillacs
So the evidence that I've seen indicates the a wage level that is too low increases the need for welfare. Of course, part of the problem is that the cost of living in some areas is quite different from the cost of living in others, so if there is a standard level for the entire state, some will be doing grossly worse than others. But this is a really disgraceful false economy.
Probably the reason in the particular instance of teachers is that the expectation is that they won't need wages, because their husband will pick up the slack. So why not take advantage. Add in the problems with getting a wage increase through the political system, and you have a formula for disaster.
But the real point is, if the minimum wage is so low that one can't live on it, even when being frugal, then it is unjust. And it increases the need for welfare. And unless it fits some basic need, as teaching does, it drives all competent people out of the job (and most incompetent ones). Currenly in the area where I live people are occasionally found to be living 20 to the apartment in order to make the rent. But when you force people to live like that, they will usually try to find an exit, be it legal or illegal.
It is a complex problem, and I don't know of any simple answers. But it annoys me when people try to pretend that the problem doesn't exist. And most simple answers just seem to make the problem worse.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
Re:if you are a US citizen or green card holder... (Score:1)
---
Come on now (Score:5)
--
Re:Florida Tried to do this to IBM a while back (Score:2)
I mean, is it that much different than having a company who's legal head office is a post office box in the Cayman Islands?
What they could save in taxes could probably pay for sending a guy up there once in a while to satisfy any legal requirements.
(And, since it was my idea, *I* should get to be that guy...)
Cheers,
Jim
MMDC Mobile Media [mmdc.net]
Re:More like an offshore thing. (Score:1)
Re:Come on now (Score:1)
They don't need to bring it down, they can ... (Score:4)
(this idea is actually from my wife, not me)
(like most of my better ideas)
(and most of my better jokes for that matter)
Re:More like an offshore thing. (Score:5)
Hughes should just pull up stakes and move to some friendly state (like Texas - "Hey, we gotta Prez, for a couple years.") or maybe the Research Triangle, like Boeing just got fed up with WA and announced moving to Chicago. That would serve this particular pol bastard right. Let him be known as the (one-term) Assessor who chased Hughes off. This is one of the worst over-reachings ever.
He's just gotten laughed out of the CA State Board of Equalization (which is usually not unsympathetic to taxing entities). Later, he will get foreclosed in State and Federal courts. Guess what, the taxpayors in LA will pay for his folly. They should recall this idiot!
Taxing Satellites (Score:1)
Wow (Score:2)
1) Satellite companies remove themselves from California, and every other state which taxes "moveable personal property" to avoid the taxes.
and
2) the prices for directTV, and other digital cable services go THROUGH THE ROOF. Up until now, the costs they have been recouping have been from the LAUNCH of the satellite, if they have to pay yearly property taxes on it, that's an extra couple hundred million dollars we're talking about.
California - This is a BAD IDEA. It could cripple more companies than you think. Unless of course they're thinking of selectively enforcing the rule, which is even worse.....
just my $.02
OT: Your sig (Score:1)
Do you have a reference for it?
Thanks.
Re:Dear Sir's (Score:1)
YOU SIRZ GET AN A+++++++++++++++++++++ GRAET COMMUNT!
Re:Dear Sir's (Score:1)
Wonderful idea (Score:2)
Next thing you know they're gonna start taxing airplanes that fly through their airspace, satelites that fly through their orbit, and vehicles that drive on LA roads who's owner resides in a different location.
Idiocy.
Re:Dear Sir's (Score:1)
Re:Dear Sir's (Score:1)
All I know is English with a few words in Spanish and Chinese. Ebay lingo is beyond comprehension.
Re:More like an offshore thing. (Score:3)
This is one question to answer, and its answer is yes. While a number of early treaties have determined that no one owns space (the so-called Open Skies proposals, which the USSR originally rejected but then accepted), any jurisdiction may levy taxes upon anyone within its jurisdiction, whether they (only) work in it or (only) live in it; as Hughes "lives" in LA, LA can tax them for everything they own.
The real question is: How will this get resolved? Does the U.S. Congress have the authority to regulate taxes on space-commerce (as they have claimed the authority to do so regarding e-commerce, namely, saying there is no tax)? It would be great if they did, because then a single bill, which would be almost certainly passed, would stop this assessor's orgiastic phantasies. If Congress does not have such authority (over taxes which may be imposed by U.S. states, not foreign powers), then it would be up to the Supreme Court to decide. As the Constitution says nothing about this (except perhaps the occational phrase dealing with the Frontier), it would be a matter of Their Inexplicable Will, which is not nearly so easily bought off to purposes of good by Hughes as is that of the Congress.
Re:Better tell NASA (Score:1)
drat (Score:1)
Re:More like an offshore thing. (Score:2)
Basically, if the LA tax goons push too hard, they'll just lose, and make themselves look stupid as opposed to just greedy.
Re:The Prosecutor should get in on the action (Score:1)
Re:L.A. needs to do the math... (Score:2)
Re:Relocation costs vs. New Tax Costs = No moving (Score:2)
Re:Relocation costs vs. New Tax Costs = No moving (Score:1)
Florida Tried to do this to IBM a while back (Score:5)
I bet LA would back down if Huges threatened to close all operations there. Facing the taxpayers come election time just isn't worth it.
Re:Come on now (Score:1)
Re:Taxing Satellites (Score:1)
You have a point. Humans were stupid enough to make that movie in the first place, somehow this just follows...
A shame really (the movie), the book was one of the very few things Hubbard ever wrote that could actually be considered worth reading!
(I don't want to hear a bloody word about Dianetics)
Just goes to show ... (Score:1)
-J, Born in East L.A. (before many of your parents were born)
Re:Taxes on assets? (Score:2)
Although, Microsoft could redeem themselves... (Score:3)
I would then gladly sign up for a Passport account....
Good Reason for Hughes to Move (Score:2)
Sounds like a good reason to load up the truck and move out of Beverly.
Let's get it all over with. (Score:2)
Second of all, it's a fair-but-not-fair tax. A lot of the complication comes from the way the article was touted - it's not the satellite being taxed, it's the business IN THE CITY that uses the satellites to generate revenue. They take money from everyone that makes it. You should be used to it by now.
And, in a last-ditch attempt to get a +1 Funny, California taxes satellites because they don't see them too well. Minnesota faces a more serious problem from them as they reside approximately 12 centimeters below the orbit of nearby satellites. They're too busy ducking to legislate. Thank you, come again.
"911 Is A Joke" Lyrics... (Score:3)
http://www.publicenemy.com/lyrics/lyrics/911-is-a- joke.php [publicenemy.com]
More like an offshore thing. (Score:3)
I think the proper way to deal with this is look at these sattelites like an Offshore Rig or something. If I set up a webserver that ran an online gambling site in the middle of the ocean, but I collected the earnings while living in LA, could they tax me on that? If so, tax the satellites, as they are providing service to LA citizens. If they couldnt tax me on a boat out in the ocean, then they shouldnt tax on a satellite in space.
Your tax dollars at work (Score:4)
Re:Or not. This just in... (Score:2)
Perhaps Hughes should threaten to actually put the satellites in the state of California. From orbit. At high speed...
I always wanted a seafront property in Arizona anyway :)
Know your classic literature (Score:2)
Re:Taxes on assets? (Score:2)
In some countries, yes.
And the Oscar for Most Obvious Prediction goes to: (Score:4)
Dear Sir's (Score:5)
We are most sorry that we cannot afford to pay the taxes that you request from our current liquid assets. However, we do believe that the current value of one of our satellites will be enough to pay our debt to you. We will be delivering it to city hall as soon as we make some minor adjustments to our targeti.. err .. I mean delivery system.
Damn (Score:2)
to some extent, yes (Score:3)
I'm not aware of any property taxes that are assessed on corporate property such as PCs (though certainly real estate is taxed), but I also claim no particular expertise in this area.
Better tell NASA (Score:2)
-- russ
Dead Satellites... (Score:2)
If a Satellite is 'dead' (as in a condition where the Satellites are out of fuel as stated in the end of an article) Is the person who owns them still required to pay taxes on them as one would have to on undeveloped or unused real estate?
I can see where a satellite thought that is active and being used could be considered as a business asset, and therefore be allowed to be taxed. I have to wonder though what the tax for a multi-million dollar earth-orbiting device is? Do they really have something in their books that describes this kind of item? Also, how many other people have satellites who they are going after, or is it just one guy.
Finally, if I were able to build a satellite out of spare parts, like one of the Ham Radio satellites and a couple of my friends interested in rocketry built me a rocket, what kind of taxes would my satellite be applicable to? It's interesting since this area is not usually considered, as outerspace is usually considered 'beyond jurisdiction'. But, does that mean that laws still do not apply, and if someone hacks into my satellite and takes over it, am I out of luck in that case if laws don't apply?
I'm guessing that even though it's kinda weird, that yes, in fact this is legal, however it's going to have to be decided what's really owed, and how something like this is taxed...
[Something witty and intelligent should have appeared here.]
INCOME taxes (Score:4)
Property taxes are generally justified as payment for public services provided to residents (police, trash collection, public schools, etc.). The government obviously has no business collecting property taxes, then, on property I own in Norway.
Similarly, what the hell kind of services does the County of Los Angeles provide in outer space? There sure ain't no curb-side (satellite-side?) recycling...
Taxation without representation (Score:3)
I'm an idiot (Score:2)
That should have been "ensure".
Doh, I feel illiterate.
-Rob
That's nothing... (Score:5)
...wait until Microsoft demands an auditor be sent out to the satellites to insure full licence compliance.
-Rob
Re:Relocation costs vs. New Tax Costs = No moving (Score:2)
Actually the experience of the UK and France when minimum wage laws were introduced was that unemployment fell.
The mechanism is direct and acknowledged by the right when the subject of the argument are the super-rich. The super rich (aka the 'wealth creators') the argument goes will respond to tax cuts by working harder, earning more money. The increasingly enriched pleutocracy will then spend more money creating demand for 'stuff'. It is called the trickle down theory, to improve the lot of those at the bootm of society you have to give more gravy to those at the top and let it trickle down to the poor.
The flaw in the trickle down theory is that for folk in my income bracket expenditure is a very weak function of after their after tax income. If I make double what I made the year before I do not double my expenditure, or anything like it. I spend less than 10% of my income.
Poor folk save very little, if they get more money they spend it. And that expands the economy.
Re:Relocation costs vs. New Tax Costs = No moving (Score:2)
Actually it was you who asserted that raising the minimum wage would inevitably lead to unemployment. I was merely pointing out that the facts disprove your assertion, a causal connection was superfluous.
As for what the right wing argument is, I have not heard the 'investment' theory of trickle down hald as often as the consumption theory. But in any case the investment theory is pretty hard to sustain. Capital is not a scarce resource. Up until 6 months ago it was possible to get pretty much unlimited funds for any Internet related project.
The availability of investment funds is set by the relative level of interest rates, that is why no serious economist would endorse the trickle down 'investment' theory.
If the folk claiming that raising the minimum wage hurts the poor were notable champions of the poor on other issues their argument might be more credible. However the fact is that the folk that make the claim are the same ones who claim that tax cuts for the rich are more important than tax cuts for anyone else.
Given the choice between 4% growth and no tax cut or a 4% tax cut and no growth I will take the growth every time.
Re:Relocation costs vs. New Tax Costs = No moving (Score:2)
Cite a single study that is not from a right wing propaganda outfit.
You have a lot of opinions about what economics professors think. It is a pity you don't appear to ever have listened to one.
Clearly there is a level at which a higher minimum wage will create unemployment, just as there is a level at which higher taxes will reduce the total tax revenues. The evidence suggests that none of the Western economies are currently anywhere near either situation, with the possible exception of some of the Nordic countries.
Nonsense. A person's politics and normative economics have absolutely nothing to do with the validity of their positive economics,
A pretty naive view. Economics is not value blind as some proponents claim. Before you can evaluate economic outcomes you have to define what your economic goals are. That is an intrinsically political process and anyone who claims otherwise is either a fool or a liar.
Uhhh... (Score:3)
Re:if you are a US citizen or green card holder... (Score:2)
L.A. needs to do the math... (Score:5)
a) Satellite taxes which will only be effective ONCE becuase the next all of the companies that have satellites will be moving out (costing jobs, housing, industries that support such companies)
b) Lowering taxes for aerospace companies and encouraging thier growth (and thus building new jobs, raising property values, creating entire enconomies based on the needs of those high-tech companies)
I see quotes in the article like "Worth as much as $100 million each to Hughes Electronics in El Segundo, the satellites could bring in millions of dollars a year in taxes to schools and government." But that is an amazingly childish way of thinking. Sure you will get one round of taxes out of them, and you will look all smart and suave to your voters (Taxes are FOR THE CHILDREN! Think of the schools!), but next year when your high-tech companies have left and you have soaring unemployment and now are getting no revenue from your stupid taxes, then you'll have to ask yourself what good you actually did.
Re:INCOME taxes (Score:2)
And don't even think about calling 911 [indyramp.com] from space.
The Prosecutor should get in on the action (Score:3)
Obviously the satellites are also violating peeping-tom statutes within the confines of Los Angeles county. Let's see...one count for each pass--that's gonna be a hefty sentence if they ever manage to apprehend those filthy criminal satellites.