[OT] Sci-Fi Tax ?!

[Zappo]

Hmm, look at what happened overnight. I repeatedly tried to figure out the logic behind unexplained and fragmentary arguments and the only thing I got from it are repeated "You are wrong" sentences and assorted accuses of misrepresentation.

Shard, if you had read the whole thread, you would have noticed that I have been perfectly polite, despite the fact that the very first response I got was "A claim I heard many times. Funny thing, nobody is ever able to support it".

Then I got told (over and over again!) that I was deliberately misrepresenting AU's points, without even getting an explanation of how I was misrepresenting them! I don't like getting accused of things I have not done, and I hate it when someone tries to use it to attack my credibility.

I was interested in hearing other points of view on the subject, and debating them, but the answers I got are just a few steps from personal attacks - attempts to undermine my credibility.

Further debate would be useless. I'm not going to waste more time. I'm sure this will be taken by some as a proof of guilt, but I frankly don't care any more.

 

[Henry]

Jasper:

I agree myself; however, the only problem you run into is a MASSIVE government deficit (To the tune of about several billion dollars) while the system readjusts itself. If we had a flat income of 15% (or even 20%) then all politicians and government programs would scream bloody murder. Many worthy institutions would be slashed to the bone as various politicians would hang on tooth and nail to their pet projects, and lobby groups would be working triple-time to save what they could.

In other words, I am a firm beleiver that such a thing, long-term, would be good. But can we afford the multi-year bloodbath that would ensue?

Since I'm drifting too far afield here, I'll quit. I know that this is one of those "hot issues" so I'll leave the rest of my thoughts here. But I am fascinated that not once have "fightin' words" been spoken.

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

Until such a time as "productive" can be reliably separated from "wealthy", your point is irrelevant to the real world.

Many wealthy people are retired or capable of sheltering what income they do have. So the two are separated by the income tax system.

But, if you prefer to exchange the word wealthy for productive, go ahead.

I have no idea what on earth you're referring to. Are you talking about 1) the example of trucks; 2) the taxing of science fiction; 3) NASA funding in general; or what? And what is this "system" thingy, and what are you agreeing to?

Ponderous language can be used for two purposes: to illuminate, or to obfuscate. Since it's manifestly failed to illuminate, I have to conclude that it's being used to obfuscate.

Ponderous language?

How about, changing the subject is a standard method for avoiding a response.

I'm not the one going around making facile statements like

Interesting that this debate has remained civil until you joined in with absurd insults.

Not to mention that calling my statement "facile" without taking any effort to establish the slightest evidenced of the truth of the statment actually meets the defintion of the word facile.

There may exist reasons to tax SF, and there may also exist reasons not to tax it. These reasons have nothing to do with economics; or at the very least, economics gives little guidance as to which decision is best. Only someone who had conflated moral worth with material wealth could conclude that these reasons were therefore "arbitrary".

from dictionary.com

ar·bi·trar·y
adj.

2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference: The diet imposes overall calorie limits, but daily menus are arbitrary.

I fail to see how your statement could lead one to believe that the choice is anything other than arbitrary.


Hong, may I simply request that you attempt to remain civil?

 

[hong]

Many wealthy people are retired or capable of sheltering what income they do have. So the two are separated by the income tax system.

Exactly. And this would in no way be changed by a flat tax regime, so in effect such a tax would be hitting wealthy people _less_ than poorer people.

Furthermore, note that in the context of arguing about income tax regimes, retirees (wealth-rich but income-poor) are a moot point.

But, if you prefer to exchange the word wealthy for productive, go ahead.

Again, what, exactly, is your point?

Ponderous language?

How about, changing the subject is a standard method for avoiding a response.

So don't do it, then.

from dictionary.com

ar·bi·trar·y
adj.

2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference: The diet imposes overall calorie limits, but daily menus are arbitrary.

I fail to see how your statement could lead one to believe that the choice is anything other than arbitrary.

Whee, dictionary wars! I'm surprised it took this long for the thread to slip into the realms of meta-arguments.

From the Oxford English Dictionary (www.oed.com)

A. adj.

1. To be decided by one's liking; dependent upon will or pleasure; at the discretion or option of any one. Obs. in general use.
2. Law. Relating to, or dependent on, the discretion of an arbiter, arbitrator, or other legally-recognized authority; discretionary, not fixed.
3. Derived from mere opinion or preference; not based on the nature of things; hence, capricious, uncertain, varying.
4. Unrestrained in the exercise of will; of uncontrolled power or authority, absolute; hence, despotic, tyrannical.
5. Printing. arbitrary character: a character used to supplement the letters and accents which constitute an ordinary fount of type.

I'm sure you can check the connotations for yourself. (You can look up "connotation" in www.dictionary.com too, if you like.)

Hong, may I simply request that you attempt to remain civil?

You haven't seen me being uncivil.

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

Hmm, look at what happened overnight. I repeatedly tried to figure out the logic behind unexplained and fragmentary arguments and the only thing I got from it are repeated "You are wrong" sentences and assorted accuses of misrepresentation.

Shard, if you had read the whole thread, you would have noticed that I have been perfectly polite, despite the fact that the very first response I got was "A claim I heard many times. Funny thing, nobody is ever able to support it".

Then I got told (over and over again!) that I was deliberately misrepresenting AU's points, without even getting an explanation of how I was misrepresenting them! I don't like getting accused of things I have not done, and I hate it when someone tries to use it to attack my credibility.

I was interested in hearing other points of view on the subject, and debating them, but the answers I got are just a few steps from personal attacks - attempts to undermine my credibility.

Further debate would be useless. I'm not going to waste more time. I'm sure this will be taken by some as a proof of guilt, but I frankly don't care any more.

Zappo,

I apologize if you feel I was attacking your credibility. That was not my intent or thought. I mean no personal attack of any sort.

I simply felt that you were extrapolating my specific comments to imply much broader conclusions that I do not adhere to.

I agree that the debate quickly becomes useless.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

You know, it's nice to think that NASA's problems are because of their funding issues. But you're lying to yourself if you think that is the cause. Money had nothing to do with NASA's failure to convert american measurement units to metric units. Money had nothing to do with their failure to account for time zone changes between monitoring stations. Those were two of the major mistakes made in the last 5 years, costing BILLIONS of dollars from the NASA budget. The people who made those mistakes were not underpaid. The individual salaries of NASA folks are not low, and the complaint about money is always about funding additional missions, not increasing salaries to attract more intelligent employees.

The problem is that NASA, as an institution, is unfortunately lazy and corrupt at this point. Reliance on computers to make all the decisions, including basic fact checking, is an instutional issue, not a funding issue.

And if you think mission decisions are made based on science, you are sadly naive. Which missions get the okay is almost exclusively politics at this point. Want to guess which of two missions will be backed? Find out which congressional disctricts the proposed projects will be based out of, and which aerospace companies, and you will have the data you need. Remember, this isn't some committee composed of elder scientists studying data and making rationale, objective decisions about mission funding. This is a government agency. All its funding is approved through congress. All it's leaders are political appointees. Most of its missions are dictated in some way by military concerns.

Now take the case of Beal Aerospace, and ask yourself why it is now out of business. Don't know about the issue? Read Beal's final press release on the issue at http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0010/24beal/letter.html .

Nasa basically drove Beal out of the business, and don't tell me it was out of rational, non-political, objective scientific decisionmaking. Nobody disputes that Beal was on the road to making fairly significant scientific breakthroughs. Nope, that was all politcs.

As Beal said "We wonder where the computer industry would be today if the U.S. government had selected and subsidized one or two personal computer systems when Microsoft, Inc. or Compaq, Inc. were in their infancy." I can tell you where....you wouldn't be reading this message right now.

I'm not sure how you're disagreeing with me. If you had read my posts carefully, you'd see that my whole point was that NASA can't fly missions based on scientific merit. It has to answer to Congress more stringently than many agencies, including, and perhaps especially, the military. It has to act more like a government agency than a scientific braintrust because it is somehow perceived as less necessary. The gist of what I'm saying is that NASA should be funded, and should be a government agency, because its mission as an agency will ultimately bear directly upon national security, even more than it does now. Just as we wouldn't turn the military over to mercenaries, we shouldn't turn NASA over to the private sector.

The military is a good counterargument to your assertion about privatizing NASA. The US military has to answer to Congress, and is tax funded. Yet it's the most powerful military on Earth. The point is that a government agency, properly funded, and given the ability to choose what it needs to fulfill its mission statement, can excel at what it does.

Regarding whether the recent disasters NASA has had with its missions recently, particularly the Mars missions, had anything to do with funding - of course they did. I won't defend the stupidity of the metric/English conversion. But, an agency that is underfunded, understaffed, flies more missions than it can handle in order to maintain its funding, is subjected to misinformed public scrutiny, and is becoming increasingly marginalized by public myopia, cannot be expected to excel. Privatizing the space program will most likely result in even less esploration of space and fewer scientific missions - humanity's forays into space will be relegated to putting up communications satellites, and not much else. It's getting that way now, and it hasn't been privatized. What would prompt the private sector to go into space in a big way?