Biden Takes Aim At SpaceX's Tax-Free Ride In American Airspace (nytimes.com) 222
Whenever a rocket launch occurs, air traffic controllers ensure the safety of commercial flights by managing airspace closures and monitoring rocket debris, without receiving compensation from commercial space companies like SpaceX for these services. The Biden administration's budget proposal aims to change this by suggesting that for-profit space companies begin paying for their use of government air traffic control resources. The New York Times reports: Commercial space companies are exempt from aviation excise taxes that fill the coffers of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, which pays for the F.A.A.'s work and will get roughly $18 billion in tax revenues for the current fiscal year. The taxes are paid primarily by commercial airlines, which are charged 7.5 percent of each ticket price and an additional fee of about $5 to $20 per passenger, depending on the destination of each flight. Mr. Biden's budget proposal vows to work with Congress to overhaul the tax structure and split the cost of operating the nation's air traffic control system. His promise is based in part on an independent safety review report commissioned by the F.A.A., which advises that the federal government update the excise taxes to charge commercial space companies.
Mr. Biden's call for revising the decades-old excise tax structure is part of his push to make richer Americans and wealthy corporations "pay their fair share." In his State of the Union speech last month, Mr. Biden also called for raising taxes on private and corporate jet users, including increasing the tax that they pay on jet fuel to $1.06 per gallon from 21.8 cents per gallon over five years. That tax on fuel currently makes up around 3 percent of the annual revenue of the trust fund, which depends heavily on what commercial airlines and its passengers pay. Yet commercial space companies do not contribute to that fund or share any of the cost that the public bears when rockets are launched, said William J. McGee, a former F.A.A.-licensed aircraft dispatcher and a senior fellow at the American Economic Liberties Project, a consumer advocacy group. "This is a question of fundamental fairness," Mr. McGee said. "It would be the equivalent of having a toll system on a highway and waving through certain users and not others."
Mr. Biden's call for revising the decades-old excise tax structure is part of his push to make richer Americans and wealthy corporations "pay their fair share." In his State of the Union speech last month, Mr. Biden also called for raising taxes on private and corporate jet users, including increasing the tax that they pay on jet fuel to $1.06 per gallon from 21.8 cents per gallon over five years. That tax on fuel currently makes up around 3 percent of the annual revenue of the trust fund, which depends heavily on what commercial airlines and its passengers pay. Yet commercial space companies do not contribute to that fund or share any of the cost that the public bears when rockets are launched, said William J. McGee, a former F.A.A.-licensed aircraft dispatcher and a senior fellow at the American Economic Liberties Project, a consumer advocacy group. "This is a question of fundamental fairness," Mr. McGee said. "It would be the equivalent of having a toll system on a highway and waving through certain users and not others."
As long as NASA pays at the same rate (Score:4, Insightful)
It's clearly fair that something that causes costs to a government agency pays those costs. However hiding a subsidy for NASA by failing to get them to pay as well would be featherbedding the public sector; remember that its NASA's poor record in developing space technology that has led to the private companies getting going.
Re: (Score:3)
And what if SpaceX are lifting a payload for NASA ?
do they still have to pay the tax?
Re: (Score:2)
And what if SpaceX are lifting a payload for NASA ?
do they still have to pay the tax?
If contractors and their employees are working for the government, do they all still have to pay taxes on the money they're paid? So far the answer seems to be yes.
Re: As long as NASA pays at the same rate (Score:3, Insightful)
The airlines will h
Re: As long as NASA pays at the same rate (Score:4, Insightful)
It's true that Libertarians are simple and have a very childlike understanding of the world, but this is just a bit too much. I'm all for poking fun at their anti-government silliness, but try to make it seem at least a little believable!
Honestly, not even Elon could take that laughable idea seriously.
Re: As long as NASA pays at the same rate (Score:5, Insightful)
You're not wrong, as proved by the Libertarians down-voting you.
The problem most libertarians have is they never think that they'll be the ones getting screwed. It'll never be their wife or child who'll die from some untested medication or contaminated food or an unsafe electrical appliance.
No, it'll always be the other guy whose wife or kid dies, and then the Magical Invisible Hand Of The Market will punish that company and force them out of business, and then they'll be safe, see?
But it won't be your wife or your kid, no way. And if it IS your kid or your wife, well shucks, you can just take them to court for damages, right? Because that will bring your wife or child back, right?
Re: (Score:3)
The space industry is part of the aviation industry.
Re: As long as NASA pays at the same rate (Score:4, Informative)
The FAA is there to protect the aviation industry, not the Space Industry. During a rocket launch, they arent worried a plane will get in the rockets way, they are worried the rocket will blow up and debris will hit a plane. Here is an idea, instead of paying billions to government for something as simple as a broadcast to airlines and the public that reads: on this date, we plan to launch a rocket from here. Advise you stay away during launch window for a few hundred miles down range. The airlines will handle the rerouting. Problem solved, and look! Less government.
It's called a NOTAM: Notice to Airmen. [faa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The airlines will handle the rerouting. Problem solved, and look! Less government.
It's great when you can just unilaterally move your problems and responsibilities onto others.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: As long as NASA pays at the same rate (Score:2)
How about we do this the other way:
Airlines publish their flight plans (which they already do) and rocket companies are responsible for finding a clear safe patch of sky.
Re: (Score:2)
Only if single seat Cessnas can publish their flight plans and expect the airliners to get out of the way.
Re: (Score:2)
I know if a contractor is working for the post office, there are some exemptions. Ex: When buying the paint and other materials for the job, the state taxes are not charged.
Re: (Score:2)
And what if SpaceX are lifting a payload for NASA ?
do they still have to pay the tax?
It's all about removing hidden subsidies. If the people of the USA want to pay for a space program, that's fine. But let's have them pay for it explicitly without hiding the costs in the budgets of other agencies. So yes, NASA should pay in this situation.
Re: (Score:2)
That's how the free market the US adores is supposed to work, yes? This seems like a pretty good way of levelling the playing field, as long as everyone is on the same charge sheet - no exceptions.
Re: (Score:2)
And what if SpaceX are lifting a payload for NASA ?
That's easy. SpaceX charges NASA more for the payload to cover the new tax.
Re: As long as NASA pays at the same rate (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly this. Still, like the post office, I think they do surprisingly well given that they're actively being sabotaged.
Re: (Score:2)
Except for the one place I lived where we were the training route for new hires, yes, the USPO does great but -always- having the shitty new person showed and it sucked.
Re: (Score:2)
It didn't fail, it transferred money from the middle class to the connected contractors who donated to politicians.
A nonprofit consortium of airlines would run ATC differently. The Public believes 84% of government is corrupt. That seems to be an overly kind estimate.
Re: (Score:2)
We forget quickly that the government is composed of the same people that compose The Public. It is a human problem, not a government problem. And especially not a technical problem.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Corporate jet tax fairness as well (Score:5, Interesting)
It's clearly fair that something that causes costs to a government agency pays those costs.
Biden is also targetting corporate jets [nytimes.com] to fund the FAA, as they pay proportionally a tiny amount of tax while greatly increasing the burden placed upon the FAA who has to serve all those additional non-commercial airports.
From TFA:
non-paywalled link (Score:3)
Biden is also targetting corporate jets [nytimes.com] to fund the FAA, as they pay proportionally a tiny amount of tax while greatly increasing the burden placed upon the FAA who has to serve all those additional non-commercial airports.
Oops, here's a non-paywalled link: https://archive.is/uM6Fk [archive.is]
Re: (Score:2)
Good.
In my humble opinion, if you can afford a private/corporate jet, you can damn well afford to pay the taxes on it.
Re:As long as NASA pays at the same rate (Score:5, Informative)
Didn't read or understand the blurb, did you? This is for-profit space companies, i.e. companies which want to make money off of launching things into space. Last I checked, NASA wasn't for-profit.
That's not the point. (Score:4, Insightful)
To give NASA an implicit subsidy is what I'm objecting to. The money for the service which the FAA provides to NASA has got to come from somewhere; it's either explicit by having them charged in the same way, or implicit in requiring the FAA to provide the service to NASA without charge.
Of course I'm assuming a rational response to the need for a NASA budget boost to allow this, and that may well be a mistake. But from first principles... ;)
Re: (Score:2)
If this is supposedly for the purposes of safety, as they state, then why would it make any sense to exempt "nonprofit" or government agencies? It's an operational cost, for the purposes of safety. FIN.
Don't be duplicitous.
Re:As long as NASA pays at the same rate (Score:4, Informative)
NASA is a govt agency. Why would it pay the same govt a tax?
Just reduce its budget, if that's what you're looking for.
Re: (Score:2)
It's clearly fair that something that causes costs to a government agency pays those costs. However hiding a subsidy for NASA by failing to get them to pay as well would be featherbedding the public sector; remember that its NASA's poor record in developing space technology that has led to the private companies getting going.
Even if NASA paid the FAA it's still just an accounting issue. NASA would ask for $X in it's budget to pay the FAA and transfer the money as needed; in the end teh taxpayers pay it's just a question of how the money is accounted for in a budget.
Re: (Score:2)
Subsidy for NASA? NASA is a federal, funded agency, just like the FAA. How does requiring NASA to pay this tax make any sense?
Minor correction. It is Congress' poor record in micromanaging NASA and legislated pork-barrel restrictions on what NASA can do that has finally led to the push for taxpayer money to fund private launch companies for designing and operating new launch vehicles. Way more bang for the pork buck than the old incumbents were providing.
Re: As long as NASA pays at the same rate (Score:2)
If you're gonna bring fairness into this, then NASA has provide WAY more subsidy dollars to private space travel than they'd be getting back in return here.
Promising Corporate Tax Increases, He Cuts Taxes (Score:3, Interesting)
Promising Corporate Tax Increases, Biden Has Cut Taxes Overall
President Biden has called for $5 trillion in new taxes on corporations and high earners. But his record so far is as a net tax cutter [archive.is].
Re: Promising Corporate Tax Increases, He Cuts Tax (Score:2, Interesting)
Perhaps if you take your head out of his ass, per the government oversight committees: Bidenomics Levied an Inflation Tax on All Americans.
Tax Policy Center senior fellow Howard Gleckman. âoeIncluding corporate tax increases, most households would pay more in 2022. About three-quarters of middle-income households would face a tax increase averaging about $300.
NBC (not exactly an independent center outlet): Biden's $1.8 trillion plan for American families raises taxes. But his numbers don't add up.
The I
Let me clarify (Score:5, Informative)
I think you misunderstood my post. The article I linked to cites Biden as being an advocate for higher corporate taxes and also increased tax on the wealthy, while pledging to not increase taxes on less than $400k income -- as Biden has worked to pay down the US defect. Gotta get the money from somewhere, right?
Democrats have a much better history of paying down the debt than the GOP, at least during my lifetime. Clinton left a surplus [factcheck.org], Trump increased the deficit by record amounts [propublica.org] with his giant tax cut to corporations and the wealthy as Trump sold it to us plebeians as in our best economic interest -- as a job creation tool, (however all that cash went into stock buyouts, not increased investment). GW Bush left us with a banking/housing crises Obama had to clean up at the start of his tenure.
Trump's tax policy was merely a riff on Reagan's, as if Reagan's fiscal policy goals apparently hadn't already been proven false since then.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Let me clarify (Score:2)
Clinton paid on the debt.
But the reality is the target for debt should not be zero anyway in a growing economy. In the same way a responsible corporation will take out debt to grow rather than reducing current growth to accumulate capital first, a responsible nation should be taking out debt to find projects to prepare the economy for growth.
A good example might be building new roads, bridges, etc. That's proper debt.
Re: (Score:2)
>Clinton paid on the debt.
labeling that as "Clinton" is a bit much.
Neither Clinton nor the Republican Congress provoked by his first two years could have done it without the other.
Republicans proposed balancing in eight (?) years in the "Contract with America." Clinton called it "reckless."
Then, after they won, Clinton proposed a year less.
They saw that year, and raised him another.
The collapse in interest rates, largely caused by the drop in present and future borrowing, knocked about another year off
Re: (Score:2)
Debt to GDP, debt rarely goes down.
Re: (Score:3)
No, Clinton left a minor current surplus driven entirely by the efficiencies introduced by home computing and the rise of the internet economy and a projected surplus based on hilariously unrealistic assumptions, especially as he was leaving office the dot com crash was happening. Amusingly, most of those investors fleeing the dot com crash would invest into housing, an area already highly distorted by policies Clinton encouraged and subsidized, leading to poorly rated CDSs to become the norm in the field a
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I think you misunderstood parent's note. Taxing the nascent commercial space industry is an early move that will hurt its expansion. It's better to wait for the commercial entitites to be sucessful before throwing yet another barrier to entry in the mix.
The SpaceX launch business is likely successful now. It is true that SpaceX lost 500 million last year, but this is believed due to StarLink, which is a separate business venture, although it is an internal customer to the launch operation. If the U.S. government wants to subsidize StarLink through some mechanism, then it should do so directly. The government should not keep subsidizing SpaceX because Musk is using the company to fund other money losing ventures - this becomes a bottomless pit. Speaking of
Re: Let me clarify (Score:2)
"Yes, there is one successful commercial space launch entity. That's hardly 'an industry.'"
It's likely space travel is a natural monopoly. It would be irresponsible to wait for more players. The tax is necessary because externalities have to be accounted for when you're dealing with shared, limited resources like airspace. Otherwise you are choosing market winners that will start to eat up all the resources.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell us you don't understand without telling us you don't understand.
I didn't know being born in Delaware proved you're a "a creature of the American corporations".
Tell us more about where being born determines your relationship to corporations, this should be fascinating.
Re: (Score:2)
I was unaware that place of birth was a requirement for senators from Delaware. You learn something new every day.
Re: (Score:3)
Yep, just call living rich people victims and poor people will hand-over their last dollar: Only in America. Or, rich people will be exempted from laws that apply only to living rich people. (Available in Kansas, only.)
Trump is depending on the former flaw: As a Slashdotter noted, a Tv. celebrity bragging how rich he is, asked the justice department for a discount on court 'fees' and is now asking poor people to pay his bills.
Trump's Saudi-sponsored LIV Golf is today (Score:2)
To further backup my claim that Trump has a giant 'bribe me' sign around his neck, here's another example, happening today.
Following Muammad bin Salman's [wikipedia.org] murder of Jamal Khashoggi [wikipedia.org], which occurred during Trump's tenure as president, the Saudi's started a golf tournament with the ironic name of LIV Golf [livgolf.com]. The LIV golf purse is so large, the upstart LIV tournament [wikipedia.org] now overshadows the PGA.
Trump threw Saudi Arabia a lifeline [archive.is] after Khashoggi’s death. The LIV golf tournament, featuring several of Trump's prop
Re: (Score:2)
Commercial space was a new endeavor (Score:5, Informative)
Commercial space was always run by small companies trying to get by. SpaceX changed that. Now Space flights are more common and slated to be even more common. Adding a tax to fund the increasing demands it is putting on the federal agencies that support these programs is not entirely unreasonable.
But I do wonder if that would make it harder for newcomers.
I think this would mainly raise the cost for SpaceX with its own private launches and its many tests. But SpaceX can probably handle that. It also has enough of a competitive advantage that it can raise costs for its customers without getting hurt by the competition.
I doubt you'll ever see newcomers (Score:2)
It's an antitrust violation because they are using their market leader position to corner the market but it's a touchy subject because you're talking about worker pay.
Also c
Re: (Score:2)
Well there are some:
- Firefly
- Relativity Space
- Blue Origin
- Rocket Lab
Re: (Score:2)
Government regulations are usually cooked up by established players looking to make the barrier of entry unattainable.
You think SpaceX cooked up a tax on themselves? I expect that Musk is bursting a blood vessel over this - he does not believe in paying taxes, paying bills, or in governments (unless it is by himself when he and his disciples establish their Mars colony).
taxes as barriers to entry (Score:2)
>You think SpaceX cooked up a tax on themselves?
while I doubt it in this case (but wouldn't rule it out without evidence), requests for regulation are a *classic* move by entrenched oligopolists to raise new barriers to entry.
While the tax *does* fall on the existing entries, it reduces profits, but (in these cases) not as much as further competition would.
When this came up in a graduate economics class, and I popped off with, "*please* don't throw me in the briar patch!", once the Americans (including t
No. (Score:5, Insightful)
Space development is critical, we shouldn't be taxing it this early. After the space industry takes off, then we can. Taxing it this early is just stupid. If anything, we should be subsidizing it.
Re:No. (Score:4, Informative)
After the space industry takes off, then we can. Taxing it this early is just stupid. If anything, we should be subsidizing it.
Currently we are subsidizing it. That is what excusing it from fees to cover government costs associated with his launches is. The issue is that it is time to stop this subsidy.
It would appear that SpaceX has "taken off" already. It has launched 326 times. Last year SpaceX conducted almost half of all space launches in the entire world. The launch business is turning a profit. SpaceX lost $500 million last year only because of a separate money losing business venture - StarLink. And yes, it is a separate business, it just as internal space launch customer within the corporation. Having captured nearly half of all space launch business that exists now there is limited space for it to expand (indeed we need to make room for competitors) and is making a profit at it we can reasonably say it has well "taken off". This is why removing the subsidy is under consideration now.
Re: (Score:3)
You're saying we need a SpaceX competitor while at the same time saying we need to make them have to pay a launch tax. You realize that makes it harder to raise money right? It's already tough because investors will ask "well what about SpaceX" .. now it's going to be "what about SpaceX and what about the launch taxes?" It's adding risky to an already risky endeavor, that significantly reduces the pool of gamblers willing to make a bet.
Re: (Score:3)
Funding nasa to do what, exactly?
They are funded to do $stuff. What $stuff do you think they should be doing?
After their hey day in the late 60s and 70s they went way the fuck off the rails for decades and only re e try have somewhat recovered with the Mars rover missions. Oh yeah, they did build the shuttle which was super expensive, had no purpose, and dangerous, sucking up countless billions of tax dollars and serving as a huge distraction from serious projects.
We need people who are focused on success
Re: (Score:2)
You know when the money goes to NASA to build a spacecraft, it then goes on to contractors, right?
Right?
Re: No. (Score:3, Informative)
One of those private sector leeches fielded the first ever reusable first stage. Almost ten years later and the NASA go-to primes are still playing catch-up.
Musk should thank his lucky stars for this (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Is it somehow mathematically impossible to tax someone 101% of their profits?
Re: Musk should thank his lucky stars for this (Score:2)
Tell that to every manufacturing industry in the US.
Re:Musk should thank his lucky stars for this (Score:5, Informative)
Taxes are paid on profits, not on revenues.
Nope. The proposed tax is a fee per launch.
It is not based on profit or revenue.
Re:Musk should thank his lucky stars for this (Score:5, Informative)
You didn't even bother to read the summary which clearly states that part of this plan is doing things like taxing fuel at a higher rate wgich is a direct off the top cost on every flight including zero revenue test flights.
Yes these fees, which are not profit based ta es as you incorrectly stated, can destroy a fledgling company.
And even if you were correct (you're not), a profit tax can make the difference between having the bottom line revenue to continue to grow, research, and become a viable business... and not.
You guts think you can tax anything with no negative consequences. The power to tax is the power to destroy.
Anything we tax, we get less of.
Anything we subsidize, we get more of.
I'll take more space flights, please.
Fair Enough (Score:2)
Maybe those companies will start charging by the pound when the government wants to use their vehicles? Even better, maybe they'll start tacking on long-distance charges for all those satellites.
Absolutely they should pay (Score:3)
Anyone who uses the services provided by the FAA in some way (be it an airline, private jet, private pilot flying for fun, private space company launching a rocket, government plane, TV news helicopter, charter plane, NASA launching a rocket, military aircraft or anyone else) they should pay for using those services.
Re: (Score:2)
Good effort but different topic.
lol, no (Score:2, Insightful)
Fair? (Score:3)
>" "This is a question of fundamental fairness," "It would be the equivalent of having a toll system on a highway and waving through certain users and not others."
"Fair" is in the eyes of the beholder.
We already do wave certain people through tolls. We often let motorcycles, HOV, E-vehicles, frequent users, local users, elderly, or disabled pay less or nothing for tolls. And you can argue HOV fosters less road usage, and motorcycles can't really be HOV and are also so light they put almost no wear on roads and take up less space and are extremely efficient and less polluting. More axles pay more, huge trucks pay a ton more. Many would argue that is more fair. Some might argue parts are and parts aren't. As for income-based or age-based tiers, many would argue that is far from "fair" (nothing is as "fun" as punishing people who spent their lives being responsible, making good choices, and working harder, right?)
Presumably, the tax breaks on commercial spacecraft launches was done to foster innovation and development. Now that we have maybe met such objectives, if they are profitable, maybe we should charge them at least the same as airlines.
Re: (Score:2)
We have a single instance of a successful space flight company. The others are working on it. Increased costs will foster a monopoly. How is that good?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I did say "maybe."
There is a bit of competition, but, admittedly, not much yet.
Re: (Score:2)
If we had a thriving competitive space flight industry then some form of fees and taxes or whatever would be fine but it's toon soon.
Re: (Score:2)
motorcycles can't really be HOV and are also so light they put almost no wear on roads and take up less space and are extremely efficient and less polluting. More axles pay more, huge trucks pay a ton more. Many would argue that is more fair
Basically all road damage is done by those huge trucks. Automobiles, even the biggest and dumbest coal-rolling dudebro trucks with the shortest sidewalls, do basically zero damage to roads. It's vehicles like buses that might weigh ten tons empty, and dump trucks full of gravel, that do the road damage. Motorcycles are unfortunately NOT more efficient or less polluting than modern econoboxes on average; some of these new cars are so efficient and have such effective emissions systems that it's not even a co
Re: (Score:2)
>"Motorcycles are unfortunately NOT more efficient or less polluting than modern econoboxes on average"
That entirely depends on the motorcycle and car you are comparing. A small, modern motorcycle can get 70+ MPG and has all the same pollution controls as most modern cars. The AVERAGE of passenger vehicles on the road in the USA is 25.3 MPG. And I will count a dozen huge SUV's for each econobox car on the road. My motorcycle is a 2011, has only a single CAT, and has massively powerful 4cyl 16v 1.4L
Re: (Score:2)
If we were to factor in the externalities of doing business, a net positive would result for society. If the cost of goods included the real cost to the infrastructure and environment, we would stop shipping natural ressources accros the globe and then shipping the refined product back.
Launch from Australia (Score:2)
Launch from Australia instead of the US. Less air traffic, more room, no fees.
Really space launches can launch from anywhere, tax them and they’ll move.
Re:Launch from Australia (Score:5, Informative)
>space launches can launch from anywhere
This is actually not true in practical terms; the amount of energy required to make orbit varies considerably based on your distance from the equator and the direction you launch in.
Typically you want to be as close to the equator as you can manage and able to launch to the East with a lot of safe 'abort' territory under that flight path in case something goes wrong.
Atlas Rocket Shrugged (Score:2)
I think the Ayn Rand estate might sue over this clear appropriation of her fictional material. Where's John Galt?
Punish the successful (Score:2, Insightful)
SpaceX vastly outperformed every other global company, organization and national lab, racing past them like they were standing still
Once-great NASA has turned into a jobs program for career bureaucrats and the politically connected, wasting vast sums on awful programs like SLS
Instead of congratulating the winner, the government wants to punish them
Re:Punish the successful (Score:5, Insightful)
If they're so good, there's no longer a need to subsidize them, is there?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn't have to be all-or-nothing. If the goal is to maximize innovation and increase competition, you can have a progressive tax break (though as a non-accountant I may have flipped a sign here when switching from 'tax' to 'tax break').
Essentially, set up the relevant taxes so they start off near-zero and rise with the annual gross of the company. Or if it's a subsidy, reduce it on the same basis.
Either way, it helps launch companies to give them the opportunity to get past the barriers to entry and e
Thought (Score:2)
If it moves, tax it. If it stops moving, subsidize it.
I pointed out once EVs got prevalent enough, government would stop subsidizing and start taxing. I got modded down, by clowns who, when government inevitably changed its mind, would later dutifully regurgitate the talking point that government now needs taxes for roads.
Maths (Score:2)
I'm trying to figure out what SpaceX's share of that $18 billion is.
Seems like they launch once a week and when they do they block out a 1000 square miles for an hour.
There are 168 hours in a week, and 3 million square miles in the US, so that's (1/168) * (1000/3,000,000) * $18 billion per year = $35.7k per year.
Do I do that right?
Is the government really complaining about that tiny an amount of money?
Musk (Score:2, Insightful)
They are simply going after Musk in any way they can.
Makes sense, but should be done all over (Score:2)
1 thing is that money collected for funds, such as the aviation fund, should not be accessible by CONgress. Most funds are in trouble because of 40 years of reaganomics that premised on stealing from these funds while giving rich large tax cuts. Insane.
Re:Another election year move (Score:5, Interesting)
You mean the very same "libtards" who paid for the establishment of the musk empire and bore the initial costs? The ones who run California, the state that sponsored his forever failing car peddling outfit and his "space company" to the tune of tens of billions, when no private investor would put money into it? The same state that musk dumped when the time came for him to pay some of that back?
Ain't you "bootstrapped" lot a tad ungrateful? :)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Headline, "Poorly run state gives billions of tax dollars to foreign billionaire, whines when he takes it".
Re: (Score:2)
That is your interpretation. The headline could very well be "Poorly run state races to the bottom, becomes home of a billionaire who doesn't want to pay taxes".
Re: (Score:2)
He [Musk] did not force a poorly run state to give him money for nothing.
Didn't force, but used his car-saleman charm and BS technobabble to get it.
Let me re-write you headline even more honestly : "State run by incompetent wankers gives billions of tax dollars to foreign arsehole con-man, whines when he takes it".
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, that's a fair version, too. I've no issue with your take on it. Even when it was cool to worship Elan, I did not.
If the 5th largest economy on the planet doesn't have the expertise on hand to cut through his crap then they deserve to be abused.
Re: Simply Stupid. More taxes and fees is all it (Score:2)
The money isnâ(TM)t going to the ATC workers, itâ(TM)s going to NextGen, a failed ATC automation software investment which FAA has spent the bulk of its revenue since 2008.
Re: (Score:2)
We have a name for that. "Socialism".
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, were those gifts or contracts?
If they were contracts then we got what we paid for as per contract terms, did we not?
Re: (Score:2)
Of course. And nobody is blaming SpaceX for accepting such generous terms.
Maybe people would be more willing to listen if we talked about all the public funds that were being throw at Boeing, for even less return on the dollar?
Re: (Score:2)
Or the telcos that have received zillions to expand high speed access to more rural and poor areas but never did. Multiple times.
Re: (Score:2)
A legit criticism, but I don't see how it relates. That's a whole other topic.
Re: (Score:2)
Just another symptom of government giving our money away senselessly to people they see as either their friends or who fit the current agenda.
There are countless such events. Sold dra comes to mind. The auto industry at various times. Intel with the Chips Act. It's pretty endless and all fits the same general mold.
Re: (Score:2)
I say let's tax lobbyism and marketing instead of both being tax deductible expenses.
Re: (Score:2)
He hates Elon and it is fashionable in his party to do so.
Then why is SpaceX still getting massive subsidies? I suspect (like always) you random internet poster has no clue what you're talking about.