Oregon Congressman Proposes New Space Tourism Tax (space.com) 155
U.S. Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon) plans to introduce legislation called the Securing Protections Against Carbon Emissions (SPACE) Tax Act, which would impose new excise taxes on space tourism trips. Space.com reports: "Space exploration isn't a tax-free holiday for the wealthy. Just as normal Americans pay taxes when they buy airline tickets, billionaires who fly into space to produce nothing of scientific value should do the same, and then some," Blumenauer said in a statement issued by his office. "I'm not opposed to this type of space innovation," added Blumenauer, a senior member of the House of Representatives' Ways and Means Committee. "However, things that are done purely for tourism or entertainment, and that don't have a scientific purpose, should in turn support the public good."
The proposed new tax would likely be levied on a per-passenger basis, as is done with commercial aviation, the statement said. "Exemptions would be made available for NASA spaceflights for scientific research purposes," the statement reads. "In the case of flights where some passengers are working on behalf of NASA for scientific research purposes and others are not, the launch excise tax shall be the pro rata share of the non-NASA researchers." There would be two taxation tiers, one for suborbital flights and another for missions that reach orbit. The statement did not reveal how much the tax would be in either case or if the collected revenue would be earmarked for any specific purpose. Such a purpose could be the fight against climate change, if the proposed act's full name is any guide. Blumenauer is concerned about the potential carbon footprint of the space tourism industry once it gets fully up and running, the statement said.
The proposed new tax would likely be levied on a per-passenger basis, as is done with commercial aviation, the statement said. "Exemptions would be made available for NASA spaceflights for scientific research purposes," the statement reads. "In the case of flights where some passengers are working on behalf of NASA for scientific research purposes and others are not, the launch excise tax shall be the pro rata share of the non-NASA researchers." There would be two taxation tiers, one for suborbital flights and another for missions that reach orbit. The statement did not reveal how much the tax would be in either case or if the collected revenue would be earmarked for any specific purpose. Such a purpose could be the fight against climate change, if the proposed act's full name is any guide. Blumenauer is concerned about the potential carbon footprint of the space tourism industry once it gets fully up and running, the statement said.
tik tok (Score:2)
Re:tik tok (Score:5, Insightful)
Well that didn't take long. What's in it for me?
Since there is concern for the environmental impact rocket launches have [www.cbc.ca], that should be enough for you. Or did you have anything else in mind with "What's in it for me"?
Re: tik tok (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Taxation is money.
Yes, how else would you tax something?
It isn't negative environmental impact in a box.
Did anyone say that? Per economic theories it is an incentive though, an incentive to cut down on certain trips, by taxing them at the level where there is a balance between the number of launches and the environmental impact. Too high and it will prohibit space travel for economical reasons, too low and the buyers of space travel will shrung their shoulders and pay the token fee. But there is a sweet spot where it decreases space travel to a degree where we can manage
Re: (Score:2)
Except for raising the price of an already very expensive proposition so that less people can afford it, and thus less launches happen. And if the money generated by this tax went specifically to EPA enforcement or superfund cleanup, then yeah it just might be negative environmental impact in a box.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, that is certainly the most blatant flamebait post I have seen in ages.
Re: (Score:2)
Because to you, the only government programs paid for with taxation are welfare and police / military?
Maybe this tax could be used to offset the increased regulatory costs at the FAA for if this new industry takes off, making sure that any commercial aviation activities are safe for people, and that the facilities are being managed properly? Or I hear that rocket fuel can be some nasty stuff that has environmental impact, maybe this could pay for some EPA inspections and regulation of suborbital and orbita
Re:tik tok (Score:5, Interesting)
Jeff's rocket emitted about 300 tonnes of carbon.
I am ok with taxing that.
But it should be taxed the same as any other CO2 emissions. There shouldn't be a special "rich guy" tax just because a congressman benefits from pandering to envy.
Re:tik tok (Score:4, Insightful)
Pray tell, how does a rocket that uses hydrogen and oxygen for its propulsion and weighs about 80 tonnes fully fueled emit 300 tonnes of carbon?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Arent all of those things already taxed in many many forms?
Re: (Score:3)
You can ask that about any single thing humanity has produced.
Why stop at the fuel and infrastructure? Why not include the R&D leading to this point, the emissions of the vehicles the employees drive, etc.
When someone says "Jeff's rocket emitted about 300 tonnes of carbon." I take that to mean the rocket itself, during its flight emitted that amount of carbon, which is physically impossible, not some arbitrary accounting I saw no proof of.
Would the rocket have not 'emitted 300 tonnes' if the launch was
Re: (Score:3)
If the hydrogen and oxygen used to propel the rocket released 300t of carbon to create, then it has already been released before they lit that candle, no matter when that actually happens.
Without his little suborbital flight for the uber rich, would that 300t of carbon have been released for literally no purpose other than a stupidly rich guy getting a smile for 10 minutes? Or without his company's purchase order, would it have not been created at all? Companies that make these kinds of things don't just
Re: (Score:2)
Pray tell, how does a rocket that uses hydrogen and oxygen for its propulsion and weighs about 80 tonnes fully fueled emit 300 tonnes of carbon?
Where do you think hydrogen comes from?
Re:tik tok (Score:5, Funny)
Generally from the condensation period following the Big Bang.
Re: tik tok (Score:3)
The best kind of correct.
Re: tik tok (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who? Where? What? Why?
Re: tik tok (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who? What? Where? Why?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the rest of commercial industry doesn't. Only 4% of commercial hydrogen production comes from electrolysis. The other 96%? Natural gas, oil, and coal. In that order.
Re: (Score:2)
Was the rocket launched from the ground? I know that Branson's ride was carried up to the stratosphere by an aircraft burning jet fuel...
Re: (Score:2)
Where did the hydrogen come from? Magic? Or do you think it could have possibly come from a whole lot of natural gas, oil, and coal which respectively account for 48%, 30%, 18% of global commercial hydrogen production?
Where did the oxygen come from? A unicorn's ass? Or do you think it could have possibly come from cryogenic air separation? I hear it might take a little bit of energy to get air from ambient temperature down to -185C. And where did that energy come from?
Come on now, try some critical th
Re:tik tok (Score:4, Insightful)
Gees, people, GET A GRIP. The tax they pay is in better launch methods. So long as they are paying for better access to space who cares. GET A GRIP, WAKE UP. That is exactly how you pay to develop the space program, you sell tickets to fly, you sell lottery tickets for a chance to fly. Early comers pay the highest price and the more they pay, for space ships and space stations and a city on the moon, the sooner we will have it.
Wake up you silly nig nogs, we have to pay for better space ships, with better life support and longer range and carry more and and and. How that is paid for, joys rides, fine, great, not a problem. What is wrong with up tight anal retentive freak. THEY ARE PAYING TAX by paying for the ride. That ride has other uses beyond just carrying them around.
Yeah, you all be a jealous as all fuck and wont admit it. They are paying space tax by paying for joyrides, they want to join the fifty mile high club, the so fucking be it. That is exactly how it is all paid for, what do you people not understand.
Re: (Score:2)
Many of us could, if not be flying off into space, be far ahead of where we are now if only we shit on everyone around us in the process. We choose not to.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell us all about it, person who's so afraid that everything they say is bullshit that they won't even log into Slashdot. Even you think your ideas are garbage and fear anything resembling accountability.
Re: tik tok (Score:2)
Re: tik tok (Score:2)
No [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So how does paying taxes for these launches help the environment? Those who can afford it are still going to pay and none of the taxes are going to environmental efforts.
Just more government money grabbing. It's not surprising that tax suggestions were introduced on the same day that the launch took place. Yet, all previous space launches were ok for the environment. See how that works?
Re: (Score:2)
How do you know that none of the money will go to environmental efforts? Have you seen the legislation that hasn't been written, discussed, debated, scored by the CBO, or voted on?
Re: (Score:2)
Because it wasn't mentioned, at all. Generally when legislatures don't mention why the tax money is needed, it's because they want to use it frivolously. Taxing for the sake of taxing.
Re: (Score:2)
Because that's how the government works. Rarely if ever is a tax used for the claimed purpose, and here it's not even claimed.
Re: (Score:2)
All previous space launches from the USA that involved carrying passengers had scientific merit to them. Gee, do you think that might be exactly why the Congressman (who I generally dislike, having lived in the Portland area and knowing his particular issue portfolio) may have said that there would be an exemption for passengers that are going for scientific purposes (e.g. NASA)?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes? Is that a trick question or something? Don't you think that's the reason that I even bothered to point out the hypocrisy of his statements?
He wants to tax these launches because it's hurting the environment. Well I have news for you, scientific launches have the same affects. The taxes have nothing to do with his environment reasoning. He just wants to tax this as a luxury for the sake of more government income. He's just lying to get more government money.
I don't understand all of this sudden interest
Re: (Score:2)
How is he lying?
Other space launches at least serve a greater purpose - scientific discovery, launching of communications infrastructure, etc.
The only thing that Blue Origin exists for right now, is transferring wealth from really rich people to the richest guy on the planet at fairly significant environmental cost. Seems like exactly the kind of thing government should step in the way of, because environmental damage doesn't give a fuck about rich, poor, national boundaries, or any other abstract concept.
Re: (Score:2)
"How is he lying?"
His lips were moving.
Re: (Score:2)
So how does paying taxes for these launches help the environment? Those who can afford it are still going to pay and none of the taxes are going to environmental efforts.
It depends on the level of taxation. If not taxed low enough it will increase the "price" of launches and lower the number of launches due to some thinking the price it too high for pure entertainment. Fewer launches => less resources used => better for the environment. So even if the money from the taxation doesn't go directly back into environmental actions it may help the environment.
Just more government money grabbing. It's not surprising that tax suggestions were introduced on the same day that the launch took place. Yet, all previous space launches were ok for the environment. See how that works?
No, they weren't but when space launches were the sole domain for scientific pursuits or getting expensive satellite
Re: (Score:2)
Parasites gonna parasite. Somebody somewhere was successful and needs to be punished! What did you expect?
Blue Origin Exempt? (Score:2)
So since Blue Origin's New Shepard rocket uses a hydrolox engine which produces water vapor as exhaust and doesn't involve any carbon in the reaction, are they exempt from the act that so eagerly uses it create the desired acronym?
Re: Blue Origin Exempt? (Score:2)
That hydrogen comes from somewhere. That somewhere likey has an environmental impact.
That said, it's the environmental impact that should be taxed where it occurs, not a specific purpose of the energy spending (i.e. "space tourism").
Re: (Score:3)
Solar panels or wind turbines, or hydroelectric and a bit of electrolysis. Plenty of ways to get hydrogen without involving carbon.
Re: Blue Origin Exempt? (Score:2)
Yes and no.
"Yes" because theoretically, it's possible.
"No" because practically, we don't know that the Blue Origin hydrogen came from there. Most likely it came from where the bulk of industrial hydrogen comes from, and that's as a byproduct of fossil fuel extraction, burning conventional fuel in the processing. Also, many forms of "clean" energy are not always as clean as they claim (i.e. hydroelectric destroys wildlife habitats more often than not). That's why I said: tax environmental strain where it occ
Re: Blue Origin Exempt? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whataboutism.
We can tax the shit out of both. "and" is a possibility here.
Re: Blue Origin Exempt? (Score:3)
Bullshit defend yourself. Whataboutism is the Cry of the hypocrite.
Lob a bunch of attacks, then prevent anyone from attacking back by calling it whataboutism.
Don't participate if you can't handle the rebuttal.
Re: Blue Origin Exempt? (Score:2)
You realize when I make the same arguments about using clean energy for crypto mining...
Yep, that sucks for you and your debates about cryptomining.
But now we talk about something else. Crypromining doesn't make space travel any more or less sustainable.
Re: (Score:2)
96% of commercial hydrogen production starts with fossil fuels, and the other 4% is energy-intensive electrolysis. So even in the "green" case, the energy used will predominantly come from grid power, which emits carbon.
At the end of the day, all that hydrogen was produced via carbon emission, unless you can point to where Blue Origin is contracted with, or operating their own grid disconnected hydrogen electrolysis and cryogenic storage facility, powered by a carbon-free energy source they also built.
Can
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.nuscalepower.com/e... [nuscalepower.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, so a company that hasn't even built their first commercially licensed reactor has somehow managed to get a full scale hydrogen electrolysis plant up and running with the heat from that non-existent reactor?
I'm pretty sure that if Nuscale had installed a few of these for Blue Origin to create hydrogen with, we would have seen a press release, or some government licensing to operate a reactor under the Freedom of Information Act.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, you *can* get hydrogen from electrolysis. But Blue Origin did not. Commercial hydrogen production comes from 96% fossil fuels.
Unless they built their own cryogenic gaseous separation plant right next to the launch site, and then a whole shitload of solar / wind generation right next to that and then disconnected from the grid, you cannot say that there was no carbon footprint to get that hydrogen.
And that doesn't even start talking about the liquid oxygen - I hear it takes a bit of energy to get air
Re: Blue Origin Exempt? (Score:2)
That hydrogen comes from somewhere.
Then that "somewhere" should be taxed. Not the end use r of the H2.
Re: Blue Origin Exempt? (Score:2)
Isnt't that what I just said in the paragraph right after that?
If it moves, tax it (Score:2, Insightful)
reminds me of this (Score:2)
My old drill instructor (Sgt Major Cameron) would bark out
"If it does not move paint it... it if moves salute it."
to us raw recruits.
Politicians would love to be able to tax anything that moves including shoe leather.
Re: If it moves, tax it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it isn't.
That cryogenic hydrogen very likely came from fossil fuel sources. That cryogenic oxygen came from a whole lot of energy use to liquify air, and that energy likely came from fossil fuel sources.
Those fossil fuel sources could have created energy used for greater purpose, like heating / cooling, food and medicine production, light, and basically any other use than shooting a fucking rich guy barely above the Karman line for a very brief amount of time so he could come back wearing a stupid hat
Re: If it moves, tax it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Those solar panels will produce more energy than went into creating them over the lifetime of the panels, which makes that an efficient use of those resources.
That EV car battery will reduce the quantity of fuel burned for vehicle-miles travelled to zero, which will reduce overall emissions over the life of the battery to a negative number opposed to the same vehicle with an ICE travelling those miles, which is an efficient use of those resources.
The hydrogen that was burned to put a gazillionaire into spac
Re: If it moves, tax it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And this is why nothing ever gets done to fix problems - because now you've tried to turn a discussion about taxation into a conflated discussion about hypothetical and completely unproven corruption.
There is no legislation written about this that would say where the money would go, but people are already jumping on the idea as being "just more government waste" when the guy has only spoken into a microphone about the idea, and not actually presented a bill to the Ways and Means committee on which he sits f
Re: If it moves, tax it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You need proof of waste and corruption in government? You just lost all rights to your geek card, fool.
Re: (Score:2)
I would like proof of specific allegations, such as members of Congress using tax dollars to buy rare bourbons for their Capitol offices, yes. I don't think asking someone to back up an allegation like that with proof makes me a fool, but someone who wants to make sure everyone is arguing in good faith, even if there is a mountain of reasons to know that people are not.
Re: If it moves, tax it (Score:2)
Where does space start? (Score:3)
I can feel a loophole there. Altitudes will be just below the one defined in the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Or it will be turned into a science experiment.
Here is a much better tax strategy ... (Score:5, Insightful)
How about making too-big-to-fail companies like Amazon actually pay taxes?
Fun Fact (Score:4, Insightful)
If you took every nickel and dime of wealth from every billionaire in the US - that's every share of tax, every investment, every dollar their homes and yachts are worth - you would get somewhere around $4 trillion dollars. That would be enough to fund the federal government, every state government and every city government for 6 months. Then what do you do?
The federal deficit alone is $2 trillion, this year, SO FAR. We might have a taxation problem on rich people, but raising taxes on them is like bailing out a sinking ship with a spoon. We need get spending under control more urgently than we need to fix the tax system.
Re: Fun Fact (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The U.S. dollar is on track to losing its reserve currency status, and when that happens Americans are screwed.
Not really. Every time this topic comes up, the question ultimately comes down to "what replaces it?" and the answer is nothing. The euro, (which was itself designed from the get-go to replace the dollar as the reserve currency) is at a very, very distant second, but ultimately falls short due to a few countries within the Eurozone being currently or almost insolvent.
The best way that we can put this in numbers is this: Currently 60% of all central banks hold US dollars as their reserve currency, while the
Re: Fun Fact (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that we have mathematical proof that the wealthy (not just billionaires, but the 1% and 10%) are impoverishing us, we have the income data to measure it, and the inequality is in our faces all day, we don't need politicians to point it out. Frankly I'm wondering why you're trivializing modern hyper-inequality, it's one of the biggest problems humanity is facing.
Re: Fun Fact (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Great. It's real easy to say "we need to cut spending!" but not actually say what you would cut. So what would you cut?
Military? (15.88% of federal budget)
Medicare and health? (27.42% of federal budget)
Social Security and Unemployment? (33.26% of federal budget)
Maybe stop paying the debt service on already spent money and sink the economy in the toilet to where it would have to look up to see shit? (5.97% of federal budget)
Veterans' benefits? (4.19% of federal budget)
Or maybe food assistance or agricul
Re: (Score:2)
Every single one of those has waste and abuse in it. Have you ever worked around government? Half of the employees couldn't find a job in the private sector. I'm generalizing, but there certainly are good gov employees as well. But on the whole, they're far less productive than those outside. Also, how often have you seen bad government employees get canned? No need to answer.
Re: (Score:2)
That's just not a possibility for some programs.
What 5% of food assistance programs and medical insurance would you cut? Remember when everyone on the right was getting all crazy about rationing of health care and "death panels" ? You just created them, and it wasn't "the libs" doing it.
What 5% would you cut from veterans benefits?
What 5% of treasury debt would you decide not to pay?
What 5% of Social Security recipients don't get paid any more? Or does everyone on Social Security just get 5% less when ma
Re: (Score:2)
There's also the pesky problem of: How is the IRS going to turn their physical and paper wealth into US dollars? Once you've taken their homes, yachts, and AMZN stock, who is left with enough money to buy them? It'll be a miracle if they get pennies on the dollar.
"Tax the rich" was never about generating revenue, and it can't possibly be about helping the poor.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be silly. We can solve global warming just by taxing two companies who have only used their products once.
We're done.
It's fixed.
Go outside and play and stop worrying.
Re: (Score:2)
He's from Talos IV. He's a Talosian.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Tourism (Score:2)
I guess these fools will go after anything fun. Space tourism funds space science, manufacturing, and engineering. We do not need disingenuous fools who kept voting to defund NASA messing up space research.
Angling for bribes (Score:2)
This is just a Congresscritters Angling for some pork. Must be that none of the companies do business in his district, so he's getting jealous. Bribe him with a juicy subcontract in his district (with the recipient - purely coincidentally - making a generous campaign donation), and he'll shut up.
If you to tax entertainment, go for it. But any debate ought to actually discuss the whole range of activities. Formula 1 racing? Motocross? Golf (think: water usage)? Skiing? There are lots of activities with maj
Ronald Reagan was right (Score:2)
How about yachts? (Score:2)
Billionaires having a dozen yachts is worse that 1 or 2 rides of a space-yacht.
Probably already spent more than tax brings (Score:2)
BO is planning TWO more 4x$250k revenue flights this year (total revenue $2M since Bezos gave away 3 or the 4 seats on first flight, not sure any VG seats on Unity were paid for either). At a 10% tax rate that's about $200k. If VG does the same tax revenue is $400. Let's say it costs the govt $500k to get this bill passed. So in it's first year it doesn't even cover the cost of legislating it. Even at a 50% rate that's only a few million dollars a year. No disincentive for anybody and no significant
Re: (Score:2)
Unless something changes, you'll get your wish. From Wikipedia:
The AMT was originally designed to tax high-income taxpayers who used the regular tax system to pay little or no tax. Due to inflation and cuts in ordinary tax rates, many middle income taxpayers began to pay the AMT. The number of households owing AMT rose from 200,000 in 1982 to 5.2 million in 2017, but was reduced back to 200,000 in 2018 by the TCJA.[6] After the expiry of the TCJA in 2025, the number of AMT taxpayers is expected to rise to
Tax Deduction (Score:2)
Why not (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just assign each "crew" member a science project? (Score:2)
Does an acorn carried into suborbital space grow differently than one that has not? That sort of pressing question.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health funded a $592,527 study to explain why Chimpanzees throw their feces, so doing equally stupid "science" ought to easily bypass this tax.
Tax that which they did not create (Score:2)
This is oh-so typical of government, particularly on the left. They didn't create private space activities which have pretty much kicked NASA's ass. They can't use it as a political carrot-and-stick like NASA. So as night follows day, jealousy results in the temper tantrum of taxation.
A typical Team Blue revenue proposal (Score:2)
Because space tourism is a niche activity for a small number of early adopters, it wouldn't raise enough money to do anything less costly than the extra bureaucracy it would take to administer it. What would happen is that every rich adventurer's CPA would recharacterize her space voyage as being "research" of some convenient sort.
Really? (Score:2)
Who the f cares? This is just idiotic moral posturing. It doesn't even rise to the level of virtue signalling.
Re: (Score:3)
It's a Democrat who has discovered an exchange of money that isn't already taxed. Just another day that ends in "y."
A Democrat looking for new things to tax (Score:2)
Whoda thunk it? I've never heard of such thing.
I'm shocked (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because even in Multnomah County, Oregon where he's from, the F150 is the best selling vehicle, and he really likes being in Congress.
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly you aren't familiar with the modern American politician.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not Oregon that wants to tax it, it's a single representative from the largest urban area in Oregon that wants to tax it, and that should shock nobody because this guy has never seen a tax he didn't want to levy to pay for useless streetcars nobody wants, which move you across the city slower than you can walk.
The State of Oregon could give a shit, because it's entirely out of their jurisdiction. Nobody is launching anything bigger than a model rocket in Oregon.
Re: (Score:2)
No one spends a dime
0.000002922 BTC