I meant on income taxI.e. every day on the moon means 1million dollars that cannot be taxed.
Quote from: Landfound on 03/27/2017 07:15 pmI meant on income taxI.e. every day on the moon means 1million dollars that cannot be taxed.They are there to enjoy themselves. Why should they be tax exempt?
Trouble is 5 of the 7 spaceflight participants who have flown to date were from the USA and no such special measures was taken for them. I don't see the need, and it's unlikely Congress would either. They already paid $20-40 million to go to space (for 8-15 days) and some portion of that would have been taxes.
Quote from: VIY on 03/27/2017 07:38 pmQuote from: Landfound on 03/27/2017 07:15 pmI meant on income taxI.e. every day on the moon means 1million dollars that cannot be taxed.They are there to enjoy themselves. Why should they be tax exempt?Because they don't have to go. They can choose to spend their money as they please....In turn that astronaut isn't gonna pay an additional premium to use that basketball court nor will they start a business where athletes go up to play on that court.
Quote from: Landfound on 03/27/2017 07:51 pmQuote from: VIY on 03/27/2017 07:38 pmQuote from: Landfound on 03/27/2017 07:15 pmI meant on income taxI.e. every day on the moon means 1million dollars that cannot be taxed.They are there to enjoy themselves. Why should they be tax exempt?Because they don't have to go. They can choose to spend their money as they please....In turn that astronaut isn't gonna pay an additional premium to use that basketball court nor will they start a business where athletes go up to play on that court.This pretty much applies to many other things. You go to a concert, but you don't have to go, you could have spent the money elsewhere and instead of supporting the band, leave it to the government to support art and music.
This falls under the misconception that if taxes are removed, then suddenly everyone will do a thing. It's not true, especially of a thing that is so very expensive that only a few people can even afford it, never mind that even fewer of those people are interested in doing it.
and over those nearly 200,000 people who could theoretically afford to go to space if they so desired, precisely 7 people have gone to space. About twice that number have shown some interest in doing various space tourism ventures, but it hasn't happened. If we use your number of 1%, some 2,000 people may be interested and able to afford spending their money on space tourism. Those with a net worth over $100 million are even fewer, only some 23,800. 1% of 23,800 is 238.
200,000 people worldwide with a net worth over $30 millionIf we use your number of 1%, some 2,000 people may be interested and able to afford spending their money on space tourism. Those with a net worth over $100 million are even fewer, only some 23,800. 1% of 23,800 is 238.
Canada didn't take over the film industry by being warm.
The "flaw" is the point - there's not very many people who can afford to spend the money on spaceflight. Where is the reduction in price by the various numbers you are pulling from the void coming from???
Quote from: Landfound on 03/27/2017 08:36 pmCanada didn't take over the film industry by being warm. And the effects obviously haven't been to _anybody's_ benefithttp://freakonomics.com/podcast/no-hollywood-ending-visual-effects-industry/
Quote from: whitelancer64 on 03/27/2017 09:52 pmThe "flaw" is the point - there's not very many people who can afford to spend the money on spaceflight. Where is the reduction in price by the various numbers you are pulling from the void coming from???The numbers you posted. 30 million plus category 200,000100 million plus 20,000
Regardless of whether such a tax break would have any stimulating effect on lunar voyages, I struggle to imagine a less popular, more politically impossible tax break. Wealthy people do, in fact, get all kinds of tax breaks (Warren Buffet pointed out that he pays taxes at a lower rate than his secretary), but I cannot picture a senator or representative wanting to be associated with a tax break aimed for fabulously wealthy lunar tourists. Even Donald Trump might be embarrassed to propose this.
Quote from: Landfound on 03/27/2017 10:01 pmQuote from: whitelancer64 on 03/27/2017 09:52 pmThe "flaw" is the point - there's not very many people who can afford to spend the money on spaceflight. Where is the reduction in price by the various numbers you are pulling from the void coming from???The numbers you posted. 30 million plus category 200,000100 million plus 20,000You were pulling numbers out of thin air and declaring the price will be reduced by that much. How is the price being reduced?
Quote from: pippin on 03/27/2017 09:59 pmQuote from: Landfound on 03/27/2017 08:36 pmCanada didn't take over the film industry by being warm. And the effects obviously haven't been to _anybody's_ benefithttp://freakonomics.com/podcast/no-hollywood-ending-visual-effects-industry/I don't remotely see the relation
Quote from: whitelancer64 on 03/27/2017 10:04 pmQuote from: Landfound on 03/27/2017 10:01 pmQuote from: whitelancer64 on 03/27/2017 09:52 pmThe "flaw" is the point - there's not very many people who can afford to spend the money on spaceflight. Where is the reduction in price by the various numbers you are pulling from the void coming from???The numbers you posted. 30 million plus category 200,000100 million plus 20,000You were pulling numbers out of thin air and declaring the price will be reduced by that much. How is the price being reduced?I'm saying that demand will increase if it's reduced. In this context no one is decreasing the cost.they are increasing the supply by making it more affordable via tax exemptions.Additionally by sending people who atleast in theory have the means to invest in further space technology can.
You brought up the film industry subsidies as an example, not me.Subsidies like that generally don't work. They only create a race to the bottom and do _not_ increase the market size because there are so many other, more important variables. Price elasticity of demand is extremely low.Canada didn't increase the overall market size for movies, they are now just being shot elsewhere.
Quote from: pippin on 03/27/2017 10:11 pmYou brought up the film industry subsidies as an example, not me.Subsidies like that generally don't work. They only create a race to the bottom and do _not_ increase the market size because there are so many other, more important variables. Price elasticity of demand is extremely low.Canada didn't increase the overall market size for movies, they are now just being shot elsewhere.In the film industries case I agree the time for it being needed is long past due. As I said you control this program. It's not a magical source of money. It's a directed effort to expand investment.
The demand might increase if the price is reduced, but that's a. not a given and b. nowhere is there a guarantee that the price will be reduced.
If no one is decreasing the cost, then the demand will not increase.
The price of the space travel isn't changing, you're just making a tax break for the wealthy people who go.
c. no guarantee they will further invest in space travel technology.
I'm saying that demand will increase if it's reduced.
In this context no one is decreasing the cost.
Additionally by sending people who atleast in theory have the means to invest in further space technology can.
Tourism is not what opens up frontiers, commerce does.
a) - do you want criticism, reasons why it might be a bad idea, and are you considering them - or are you positing this as a great proposal, of which you are convinced, and thus should be immediatly implemented. Which leads to...
b) - what is the goal of the proposal - to increase spaceflight? - then why not give it to a scholarship, or a lottery to fly some random person, or a tv program, or education, or outreach, or any other way to increase interest in space. I am sure a tax break for somebody already rich - as has been pointed out before to you - is quite unlikely to be the best way, as you are targetting the group of the rich ( a small group) who are interested in space (an even smaller group) but who dont have enough money to pay for it ( again smaller), but would be swayed by this ' 1 million a day tax break' (once again, even smaller).
Why not directly subsidize the company? Or give them zero-rent loans? Or reduced paperwork? (note - please dont focus on these specific proposals, but the bigger points).
That is false logic.For instance, the cost for scuba diving is well within the abilities of many people, but relatively few of those capable of doing scuba do it. Same with golf. And if I told my wife that we could ride the fastest, tallest roller coaster for free, she would not do it - in fact she would pay NOT to ride it. Lower prices does not equal increased demand for everything.
Literally, who cares if the price does not go down?
It doesn't for everything but you can bet your ass that it does for space.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 03/27/2017 10:36 pmLiterally, who cares if the price does not go down?They don't directly go down, however over time they will if economies of scale can kick in.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 03/27/2017 10:36 pmTourism is not what opens up frontiers, commerce does.Commerce doesn't happen where nobody goes.