Um, wouldn't a natural way to assess property taxes be to first decide in which jurisdiction the property rests? For instance project the boundary of jurisdictions into space from the geometrical center of the earth. In which case it would probably be Brazil that should be collecting the taxes and Hughes would be writing off the taxes as a cost thereby reducing the taxes collected in California. Look for the locations over international waters to get crowded. And what about the surveillance satellites or Russian television satellites with polar orbits? Should we set up manned toll booths to exact a fee and do the agricultural inspection as they pass the projected borders? Or should we say that the jurisdiction is that from which the property was launched? BTW where do they launch these things from? Just another useless publicity hound. I hope the idea gets permanently mired in the courts.
Um, wouldn't a natural way to assess property taxes be to first decide in which jurisdiction the property rests? For instance project the
One of the points that L.A. County is using to assess these taxes is that it is property that owned by a (to them) local corporation that *isn't* in a taxable jurisdiction. Not that I think this is anything but a stupid idea. -- http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html It is one of the essential features of such incompetence that the person so afflicted is incapable of knowing that he is incompetent. To have such knowledge would already be to remedy a good portion of the offense.
mmotyka@lsil.com wrote:
Um, wouldn't a natural way to assess property taxes be to first decide in which jurisdiction the property rests?
No Virginia, "The Man who Sold the Moon" was not written by David Bowie.
For instance project the boundary of jurisdictions into space from the geometrical center of the earth. In which case it would probably be Brazil that should be collecting the taxes and Hughes would be writing off the taxes as a cost thereby reducing the taxes collected in California. Look for the locations over international waters to get crowded.
Hey, you almost make me feel like Tim May! Get with the program. Use those search engines. Everyone should read the works of Robert Heinlein. Not to mention half a dozen old sf hacks from the 1940s to the 1960s. If they had, they might not have an answer to the problem "who should tax a satellite", never mind the even harder problem "how do I stop my satellite being taxed", but they would at least have *thought* about it. And why the the Brazil option probably wouldn't work. Or has my gross British sense of humour failed to detect your subtle American sense of irony? Of course, as someone else pointed out in the parallel thread, the diplomats thought of it as well, and limited airspace to a hundred somethings (can't remember what. Kilometres I assume. If it was miles some eccentric-orbit spy satellites might get into the airspace. Though it is hard to imagine the CIA paying their Iraqi taxbill for reconnaissance overflights). In general sf is of no help in predicting the future. But it sometimes means that when the future comes the questions we have to answer don't take us quite as much by surprise as they do some of our neighbours. Even if we don't always agree on the answers. Anyway it is fun, so hie thee to the nearest bookshop and get into the backstory. Ken Brown
At 12:43 PM 7/17/01 +0100, Ken Brown wrote:
Of course, as someone else pointed out in the parallel thread, the diplomats thought of it as well, and limited airspace to a hundred somethings (can't remember what. Kilometres I assume. If it was miles some eccentric-orbit spy satellites might get into the airspace. Though it is hard to imagine the CIA paying their Iraqi taxbill for reconnaissance overflights).
Yes and 'territorial waters' are defined by the range of ship to shore artillery (of past). 100 km was once ununattainable, ergo indefensable, ergo written off by the 'diplomats' Things change. There's rockets hitting rockets up there now.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday 17 July 2001 11:05, David Honig wrote:
At 12:43 PM 7/17/01 +0100, Ken Brown wrote:
Of course, as someone else pointed out in the parallel thread, the diplomats thought of it as well, and limited airspace to a hundred somethings (can't remember what. Kilometres I assume. If it was miles some eccentric-orbit spy satellites might get into the airspace. Though it is hard to imagine the CIA paying their Iraqi taxbill for reconnaissance overflights).
Yes and 'territorial waters' are defined by the range of ship to shore artillery (of past). 100 km was once ununattainable, ergo indefensable, ergo written off by the 'diplomats'
Things change. There's rockets hitting rockets up there now.
Ummm, no. The diploments created the Outer Space Treaty in 1967, only two years before Apollo 11. There were plenty of satellites in orbit by then. The stated intention was to eliminate one source of tension between nations, particularly the US and the USSR, by making it illegal to claim territoriality of anything beyond Earth's atmosphere; therefore, the US could not claim the Moon. The reasoning was that if no one could claim the territoriy, no one could use it for military purposes. This was obviously false, since warships sail through international waters all the time, but what do you expect from diplomats. Now, where did you get the idea that territorial waters are defined by the range of ship to shore artillery? That makes no sense at all. Territorial waters were originally defined at 3 miles, in a time when battleships could fire shots 20 miles; even now, the limit is only 12 miles. - -- Matt Beland matt@rearviewmirror.org http://www.rearviewmirror.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE7VLDXBxcVTa6Gy5wRAnSkAKCB5Yf1RgpzZqemSmWys1HoB2VmBgCgnsPD W5GiLO/kwqa6bfYmJM+ackQ= =FVv+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
participants (5)
-
David Honig -
Ken Brown -
Matt Beland -
mmotyka＠lsil.com -
petro