Discussion:
OT question - ISS - When did we stop thinking big?
Add Reply
a425couple
2018-06-03 17:29:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
from
http://thehill.com/opinion/technology/390092-when-did-we-stop-thinking-big-save-the-international-space-station

(Or - when did our future plans start to wildly separate
from our good sci-fi books?)

When did we stop thinking big? Save the International Space Station
BY ART HARMAN, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 05/31/18 05:00 PM EDT 87 THE VIEWS
EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL

When did we stop thinking big? Save the International Space Station
© Getty Images

The International Space Station (ISS) will celebrate its 20th
anniversary this year and pass an amazing 18 years of continuous
occupation by crew from 18 nations. However, its future is in danger at
the time when it can contribute the most to preparing for long duration,
deep-space human missions, and we need to complete important long-term
scientific and medical experiments.

Current law would either privatize NASA’s operations on ISS by 2025, or
result in the destruction of the station.

Our human spaceflight laboratory is now reaching its peak scientific
capabilities, and it would be a policy failure to schedule an end to
consistent government funding of ISS. NASA’s FY 2019 budget proposal
includes plans to end funding for the International Space Station by
2025 or transferring our valuable taxpayer investment to a private U.S.
or international company or consortium. Conservatives, like Sen. Ted
Cruz (R-Texas) have opposed this plan.

The total investment by the U.S. alone in ISS exceeds many tens of
billions of dollars, and while the case for privatizing it or destroying
it to save a few billion dollars a year towards lunar exploration has an
allure, it would be false economy to end or diminish the role of ISS
before the U.S. is actually proceeding to the moon. Congress would be
better advised to add the necessary funding to continue ISS operations
as well as to explore the moon. Further, NASA should work to add as new
ISS partners India, South Korea and United Arab Emirates, which would
help reduce U.S. shared costs.

We must not repeat the mistake that was made by cancelling the space
shuttles before commercial launch services were ready — where we lost a
massive talent and knowledge base, as well as the security of being able
to launch American astronauts on American rockets for what may approach
a decade. Maintaining the cadence of human space flights to ISS is
essential until lunar explorations are actually scheduled to begin.

In addition to the incredible science advancements, ISS is a tremendous
example of how we work together with the international community. The
station also serves as an element of public and cultural diplomacy,
showing the best of America and our international partners to the world,
as well as inspiring the next generation to help build our future in
high technology and space exploration. Its continued presence gains even
more importance as China prepares to build their space station in the
early 2020s. The U.S. must not let China be the only power with an
operational space station.

It is essential that privatization or an end to the ISS program is not
tied to a date, but is based on a set of criteria that enables a smooth
transition to commercial LEO operations.

Potential criteria would include:

An established cadence of crewed launches to cis-lunar space or the
lunar surface.
The existence of a U.S.-led international coalition for exploring
cis-lunar space
A U.S. follow-on LEO platform being operational, so commercial and NASA
activity can smoothly transition operations to a new station.
Science is endangered by any uncertainties about the future operation or
survival of the station, and we could witness valuable experiments being
cancelled long before 2025, because complex and expensive experiments
often take years to develop and to operate once launched.

Cruz is correct in making the case that “prematurely cancelling NASA
programs for political reasons costs jobs and wastes billions of
dollars,” and he and many members of Congress from both parties support
its continued, NASA-funded operation until at least 2028.

As chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Space,
Science, and Competitiveness, Cruz even chaired a hearing on the “Future
of the International Space Station,” which investigated the realities of
destroying or privatizing ISS.

While there is great promise for the commercialization and
industrialization of space, the reality is that the industry is not yet
large enough to support ISS, and that could endanger an ISS dependent on
commercial contracts. In fact, NASA’s Inspector General, Paul Martin,
testified to Cruz’s subcommittee that, “the scant commercial interest
shown in the station over its nearly 20 years of operation gives us
pause about the agency’s current plans. Any assumption that ending
direct federal funding frees up $3-4 billion beginning in 2025 to use on
other NASA exploration initiatives is wishful thinking.”

Looking forward, perhaps the highest and best use of ISS is to simulate
deep space missions, such as Martian round-trips. The 2015-2016 “year in
space” mission whereby U.S astronaut Scott Kelly and Russian cosmonaut
Mikhail Kornienko spent nearly a year on ISS yielded vital physiological
data for future deep space missions, however NASA and our ISS partners
must push the envelope a lot further if a mission to Mars will
realistically happen in the early 2030s. That would require developing
“near-closed-loop” life support systems, testing kilowatt-class solar
electric propulsion, testing transit habitats, as well as conducting
another year in space to validate solutions to the harmful effects
experienced by Kelly and Kornienko. Without ISS, such missions could be
impossible, as NASA’s planned Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway would not
be continuously occupied.

It is essential that Congress and U.S. space policy affirmatively
support full funding for ISS through 2028, or until the above criteria
have been met.

Art Harman is the director of the Coalition to Save Manned Space
Exploration, and served as the legislative director and space advisor
for Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas) in the 113th Congress. Harman studied
foreign policy at the Institute of World Politics.

TAGS STEVE STOCKMAN TED CRUZ SPACEFLIGHT INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION
INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION PROGRAM OUTER SPACE SPACE LAW NASA SPACE
STATION SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ON THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION
Kevrob
2018-06-03 18:26:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by a425couple
from
http://thehill.com/opinion/technology/390092-when-did-we-stop-thinking-big-save-the-international-space-station
(Or - when did our future plans start to wildly separate
from our good sci-fi books?)
Or: Texas pols are defending their pork?

I could be convince that keeping the High Ground might be
a military necessity, but other than that, the whole "the Feds
have top pay for basic science" rationale, is, as a general rule,
unconstitutional.

Kevin R
a425couple
2018-06-03 23:17:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by a425couple
from
http://thehill.com/opinion/technology/390092-when-did-we-stop-thinking-big-save-the-international-space-station
(Or - when did our future plans start to wildly separate
from our good sci-fi books?)
Or: Texas pols are defending their pork?
I could be convince that keeping the High Ground might be
a military necessity, but other than that, the whole "the Feds
have top pay for basic science" rationale, is, as a general rule,
unconstitutional.
Kevin R
It sounds like you definitely believe that exploration,
and colonization of space should be up to private
citizens and corporations.
Is that true?

So, the debate of how much searching we should do
on Mars for existing life, would be rapidly put
aside for one organization's determination to
create and disseminate our alterations of life?

And Mars should be colonized if a way can be found
to do it profitably?

(As in the debate that got resolved by somewhat
unilateral private action in Kim Stanley Robinson's
"Red Mars".)
h***@gmail.com
2018-06-03 23:50:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by a425couple
Post by Kevrob
Post by a425couple
from
http://thehill.com/opinion/technology/390092-when-did-we-stop-thinking-big-save-the-international-space-station
(Or - when did our future plans start to wildly separate
from our good sci-fi books?)
Or: Texas pols are defending their pork?
I could be convince that keeping the High Ground might be
a military necessity, but other than that, the whole "the Feds
have top pay for basic science" rationale, is, as a general rule,
unconstitutional.
Kevin R
It sounds like you definitely believe that exploration,
and colonization of space should be up to private
citizens and corporations.
Is that true?
Kevrob is a full on libertarian where government is evil and private industry is perfectly trustworthy...
a425couple
2018-06-04 02:54:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by a425couple
Post by Kevrob
Post by a425couple
from
http://thehill.com/opinion/technology/390092-when-did-we-stop-thinking-big-save-the-international-space-station
(Or - when did our future plans start to wildly separate
from our good sci-fi books?)
Or: Texas pols are defending their pork?
I could be convince that keeping the High Ground might be
a military necessity, but other than that, the whole "the Feds
have top pay for basic science" rationale, is, as a general rule,
unconstitutional.
Kevin R
It sounds like you definitely believe that exploration,
and colonization of space should be up to private
citizens and corporations.
Is that true?
Kevrob is a full on libertarian where government is evil and private industry is perfectly trustworthy...
Are you confident, that citizens, if they were allowed to
vote on the subject, would vote to approve their government
spend money on space exploration?

Random find #1:
Considering the total budget for the world for space (~25 billion
dollars), the total amount spent per person is $3.90 (working on 6.4
billion people), and the percentage of the GDP of the world which is
spent on space is roughly 0.05%. Jun 22, 2015

Find #2, for USA alone:
NASA's FY 2011 budget of $18.4 billion represented about 0.5% of the
$3.4 trillion United States federal budget during that year, or about
35% of total spending on academic scientific research in the United States.

Thought #3, from
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/08/19/is-nasa-worth-the-money-we-spend-on-it/#36feee996447

Is NASA Worth The Money We Spend On It?

Quora , CONTRIBUTOR
Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

A crane lifts the Crew Access Arm and White Room August 15, 2016 for
installation on launch complex 41 tower (L) at Cape Canaveral, Florida.
The tower and access arm are structures being built to support human
flight crews and ground support staff for missions by Boeing's CST-100
Starliner spacecraft. Boeing and NASA's Commercial Crew Program are
developing the Starliner to take astronauts to the International Space
Station. Crew members will cross the arm and prep in the White Room
before climbing through the Starliner's hatch and getting into place for
liftoff. (Photo: AFP/Getty Images)

Is space exploration a scam? originally appeared on Quora: the knowledge
sharing network where compelling questions are answered by people with
unique insights.

Answer by Corey Powell, author and science editor at Aeon, former editor
in chief of Discover, on Quora:

A scam, by definition, depends on deceiving people to take their money.
Space exploration (at least the programs I am familiar with in the US,
Europe, and Japan) is about as open and transparent as any government
program gets. You can examine the NASA budget in detail, for instance.
There are watchdog groups that monitor NASA spending. Almost every NASA
program has a public outreach component to let the American people know
where their tax dollars are going.

But I see two other ideas that might be embedded in the question of
whether or not space exploration is a scam.

First, is any of the money spent on space exploration wasted on
ill-advised projects or excess bureaucracy? Any answer to this kind of
question is going to be highly subjective, but most people would say
“yes.” That is true of any large government agency that has to deal with
Congressional mandates, political pressure, constantly shifting
directives, multiple contractors, etc. Many people have specifically
criticized the main components of the current human space program: the
International Space Station and the upcoming Space Launch System.

On the other hand, the ISS may not provide great return on investment as
a science outpost, but it has been hugely important as an incubator of
international technical cooperation, and as a testbed for long-duration
human survival in microgravity. The problem with the SLS is not the
rocket itself, which should be highly capable, but the lack of funding
and political support for a larger mission to utilize it. You can’t
really blame NASA for following the orders given to it, and for trying
to blur the lines so it can sneak some science into politically
motivated programs. It has always been this way, all the way back to the
creation of NASA itself. So you could make a good case for waste, but I
wouldn’t call any of that a “scam.”

Second, there is the more fundamental question: Is the whole idea of a
space program a mistake? After all, we spend billions of dollars each
year and what do we get in return?

There are many ways to answer this version of the question. NASA and
related agencies have been powerful drivers of new technology. Modern
satellite communications, weather forecasting and GPS simply would not
exist without space exploration (some of it military-focused,
admittedly). Modern robotics, computers, digital photography and digital
video, fuel cells, and many other key technology received huge boosts
from space-related R&D. Studies of space weather have been important for
protecting satellites and preventing blackouts.

Space exploration has also been one of the most powerful drivers of
science and technology education in this country. Ask how many of
today’s leading scientists and engineers were inspired by the space
program and by the science-fiction shows and movies that fed off of it.
On a more subjective level, I believe exploration is extremely important
for fostering a constructive sense of wonder, collective purpose and
hope for the future.

The price tag for all of this is not small. Then again, it’s not that
large when viewed in context. For 2016, the NASA budget is $19.3
billion, out of $3.95 trillion in federal spending. That means the US
devotes about 0.5% of its budget to all things space-related.
Incidentally, that includes environmental monitoring, aircraft
engineering and other Earth-based functions in addition to human space
exploration and robotic probes. If you are talking specifically about
NASA’s planetary science program (New Horizons at Pluto, Cassini at
Saturn, etc), that comes to $1.63 billion in 2016, or about 0.04% of the
federal budget.

In that context, not so much. And definitely not a scam.

This question originally appeared on Quora. Ask a question, get a great
answer. Learn from experts and access insider knowledge. You can follow
Quora on Twitter, Facebook, and Google+. More questions:

Rocket Science: How difficult is rocket science?
Space Travel: What are the benefits of sending humans to Mars?
NASA: What is NASA studying with the NEEMO 21 mission?
Quadibloc
2018-06-04 04:13:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by a425couple
Are you confident, that citizens, if they were allowed to
vote on the subject, would vote to approve their government
spend money on space exploration?
Good question. If it were exciting enough, and didn't cost too much, perhaps.

But the cheap science is not as exciting as it doesn't involve sending out people.

The Apollo moon missions were a result of Cold War exigencies that do not exist
today, so it's not surprising a similar level of effort does not exist. Perhaps
we will return to space when technological advances make the cost trivial. For
example, *uploads* don't need life support.

John Savard
David DeLaney
2018-06-04 06:16:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by a425couple
Post by h***@gmail.com
Kevrob is a full on libertarian where government is evil and private
industry is perfectly trustworthy...
Post by a425couple
Are you confident, that citizens, if they were allowed to
vote on the subject, would vote to approve their government
spend money on space exploration?
Because, as any phule no, money spent on space exploration disappears into the
vast black void of space, and is never seen again, producing a giant sucking
sound in the country's economy and a vortex of inescapable numbers in economic
predictions. It's all NASA's fault for using robots to design and build every
phase, since legally you don't have to pay them.

Dave, it's much better to spend it on military projects and anti-edumacation
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Quadibloc
2018-06-04 16:34:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David DeLaney
Because, as any phule no, money spent on space exploration disappears into the
vast black void of space, and is never seen again, producing a giant sucking
sound in the country's economy and a vortex of inescapable numbers in economic
predictions. It's all NASA's fault for using robots to design and build every
phase, since legally you don't have to pay them.
While it's true that money spent on space exploration stays in the Earthly
economy, money spent on _anything_ produces the goods and services it was paid
for. So if those goods and services are useful to people on Earth, that's one
thing; if *they* go off into space, then the time and effort used to create them
is wasted, even though the money stays in Earthly circulation.

So this argument was wrong when Arthur C. Clarke or Isaac Asimov advanced it,
and it's still wrong today.

John Savard
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-06-04 16:48:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 12:16:48 AM UTC-6, David DeLaney
Post by David DeLaney
Because, as any phule no, money spent on space exploration
disappears into the vast black void of space, and is never seen
again, producing a giant sucking sound in the country's economy
and a vortex of inescapable numbers in economic predictions.
It's all NASA's fault for using robots to design and build
every phase, since legally you don't have to pay them.
While it's true that money spent on space exploration stays in
the Earthly economy, money spent on _anything_ produces the
goods and services it was paid for. So if those goods and
services are useful to people on Earth, that's one thing; if
*they* go off into space, then the time and effort used to
create them is wasted, even though the money stays in Earthly
circulation.
So this argument was wrong when Arthur C. Clarke or Isaac Asimov
advanced it, and it's still wrong today.
As usual, you're full of shit. Entire industries, espcially
computers and mecial, have been spawned by NASA's programs. Even
Wikipedia is more knowledgeable than you on this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spinoff_technologies

And it's not just economic benefits. The medical technology
developed for the space program has saved millions of lives, as
well.

If you would like to try (and, no doubt, fail) to be slightly less
stupid, you should browse through the archives of NASA's Spinoff
magazine (it goes back to 1976):

https://spinoff.nasa.gov/

Idiot.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Dimensional Traveler
2018-06-04 20:15:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 12:16:48 AM UTC-6, David DeLaney
Post by David DeLaney
Because, as any phule no, money spent on space exploration
disappears into the vast black void of space, and is never seen
again, producing a giant sucking sound in the country's economy
and a vortex of inescapable numbers in economic predictions.
It's all NASA's fault for using robots to design and build
every phase, since legally you don't have to pay them.
While it's true that money spent on space exploration stays in
the Earthly economy, money spent on _anything_ produces the
goods and services it was paid for. So if those goods and
services are useful to people on Earth, that's one thing; if
*they* go off into space, then the time and effort used to
create them is wasted, even though the money stays in Earthly
circulation.
So this argument was wrong when Arthur C. Clarke or Isaac Asimov
advanced it, and it's still wrong today.
As usual, you're full of shit. Entire industries, espcially
computers and mecial, have been spawned by NASA's programs. Even
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spinoff_technologies
And it's not just economic benefits. The medical technology
developed for the space program has saved millions of lives, as
well.
If you would like to try (and, no doubt, fail) to be slightly less
stupid, you should browse through the archives of NASA's Spinoff
https://spinoff.nasa.gov/
Idiot.
He's also wrong in saying that money spent on things that are "thrown
away" doesn't benefit the economy because he's obviously never heard of
a war-time boom or war profiteering.
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Quadibloc
2018-06-05 08:07:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dimensional Traveler
He's also wrong in saying that money spent on things that are "thrown
away" doesn't benefit the economy because he's obviously never heard of
a war-time boom or war profiteering.
Oh, I'm well aware of postwar economic booms. It seems like this is the only way
we know of to escape from depressions. Which is bad news now that nuclear
weapons have made war too risky to engage in to any serious extent.

Winnning a war is essential to the survival of the political order. So
politicians are willing to do things they wouldn't do otherwise when there is a
war on. If they didn't wait for a war, they could cure depressions less
wastefully.

John Savard
Quadibloc
2018-06-05 08:04:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
As usual, you're full of shit. Entire industries, espcially
computers and mecial, have been spawned by NASA's programs. Even
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spinoff_technologies
And it's not just economic benefits. The medical technology
developed for the space program has saved millions of lives, as
well.
This is true enough. But spinoffs are side benefits, so we would have more of
them if we were spending the money on finding them directly, one would presume.
A space program isn't an efficient way to do medical and electronic research.

Of course, the space program had the virtue of a single understandable goal.
That focused efforts and prevented some forms of waste, even if one regards
everything related to boosters and spaceflight directly as pure waste.

John Savard
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-06-05 15:26:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 10:48:54 AM UTC-6, Jibini Kula
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
As usual, you're full of shit. Entire industries, espcially
computers and mecial, have been spawned by NASA's programs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spinoff_technologies
And it's not just economic benefits. The medical technology
developed for the space program has saved millions of lives, as
well.
This is true enough. But spinoffs are side benefits, so we would
have more of them if we were spending the money on finding them
directly, one would presume. A space program isn't an efficient
way to do medical and electronic research.
History says otherwise. And that you'r full of shit. Some of the
technological advancements would have happened anyway, likely much
slower. Many would never have happened at all.

(And, of course, we have industries that cannot exist without a space
program, like weather predictions - many lives have been saved by
being able to see hurricanes coming far more in advance - and an
entire telecommunictions industry that simply couldn't exist without
satellites.)

You're as full of shit as always.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Quadibloc
2018-06-05 15:42:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
(And, of course, we have industries that cannot exist without a space
program, like weather predictions - many lives have been saved by
being able to see hurricanes coming far more in advance - and an
entire telecommunictions industry that simply couldn't exist without
satellites.)
That is true, but of course we could launch satellites without developing the
capability to land a man on the Moon.

When it comes to computers, there is a popular misconception that today's
microprocessors exist because of the Apollo moon program. Actually, it had a
very limited beneficial impact on the computer industry.

But in a way, they're close. Something involving rockets _did_ promote the
development of the integrated circuit at a crucial moment, causing the industry
to expand enough so that integrated circuits would later find widespread use in
computers.

The Minuteman missile program.

John Savard
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-06-05 15:44:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 9:26:43 AM UTC-6, Jibini Kula
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
(And, of course, we have industries that cannot exist without a
space program, like weather predictions - many lives have been
saved by being able to see hurricanes coming far more in
advance - and an entire telecommunictions industry that simply
couldn't exist without satellites.)
That is true, but of course we could launch satellites without
developing the capability to land a man on the Moon.
Not everyone actually entirely agrees with that.
When it comes to computers, there is a popular misconception
that today's microprocessors exist because of the Apollo moon
program. Actually, it had a very limited beneficial impact on
the computer industry.
The miniaturization comes directly from the space program. You
wouldn't want a cell phone the size of your desk, would you? (Well,
*you* might, being a moron, but most people wouldn't.)
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
J. Clarke
2018-06-06 00:40:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
As usual, you're full of shit. Entire industries, espcially
computers and mecial, have been spawned by NASA's programs. Even
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spinoff_technologies
And it's not just economic benefits. The medical technology
developed for the space program has saved millions of lives, as
well.
This is true enough. But spinoffs are side benefits, so we would have more of
them if we were spending the money on finding them directly, one would presume.
A space program isn't an efficient way to do medical and electronic research.
The problem with the notion that "we would have more of them if we
were spending the money on finding them directly" is that spending the
money directly nobody would have been looking in the right place to
find them.
Post by Quadibloc
Of course, the space program had the virtue of a single understandable goal.
That focused efforts and prevented some forms of waste, even if one regards
everything related to boosters and spaceflight directly as pure waste.
John Savard
David DeLaney
2018-06-06 02:14:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
This is true enough. But spinoffs are side benefits, so we would have more of
them if we were spending the money on finding them directly, one would presume.
A space program isn't an efficient way to do medical and electronic research.
The problem with the notion that "we would have more of them if we
were spending the money on finding them directly" is that spending the
money directly nobody would have been looking in the right place to
find them.
Right; when you don't know what is out there to find, having a regimented
program to find it in a scheduled time doesn't work very well. This is the main
issue with trying to explain how basic research works to either administrators
or politicians.

Dave, serendipity is not predictable, by definition
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Quadibloc
2018-06-06 02:19:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David DeLaney
Right; when you don't know what is out there to find, having a regimented
program to find it in a scheduled time doesn't work very well. This is the main
issue with trying to explain how basic research works to either administrators
or politicians.
Although I like the space program, I don't want to make excessive claims for it.

Yes, the money spent on it was spent in the United States; we didn't import Moon
rockets from the Moon.

And there were spinoffs.

But if space exploration itself was a useless waste of money - then those things
wouldn't justify it. Something *useful* that would also be a challenge requiring
research and having spinoffs, like trying to cure cancer or feed the hungry,
could have been attempted instead.

Then we would have gotten full value for our tax dollars - not just the economic
benefits of spending money at home, and incidental spinoffs, but what we
directly paid for would have been worth what we paid for it, too.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2018-06-06 02:28:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quadibloc
Post by David DeLaney
Right; when you don't know what is out there to find, having a regimented
program to find it in a scheduled time doesn't work very well. This is the main
issue with trying to explain how basic research works to either administrators
or politicians.
Although I like the space program, I don't want to make excessive claims for it.
Yes, the money spent on it was spent in the United States; we didn't import Moon
rockets from the Moon.
And there were spinoffs.
But if space exploration itself was a useless waste of money - then those things
wouldn't justify it. Something *useful* that would also be a challenge requiring
research and having spinoffs, like trying to cure cancer or feed the hungry,
could have been attempted instead.
You'll never "feed the hungry" until you have fought a war of conquest
to remove the overlords who keep them hungry. Afrricans aren't
starving because there is no food, they are starving because their
overlords murder the people trying to to distribute it and take it for
themselves.

As for curing cancer, you could spend the entire income of the planet
on "curing cancer" and not come up with anything because we don't know
the right questions to ask.
Post by Quadibloc
Then we would have gotten full value for our tax dollars - not just the economic
benefits of spending money at home, and incidental spinoffs, but what we
directly paid for would have been worth what we paid for it, too.
We would have wasted vast amounts to accomplish nothing.
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-06-06 17:29:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 8:14:36 PM UTC-6, David DeLaney
Post by David DeLaney
Right; when you don't know what is out there to find, having a
regimented program to find it in a scheduled time doesn't work
very well. This is the main issue with trying to explain how
basic research works to either administrators or politicians.
Although I like the space program, I don't want to make
excessive claims for it.
You don't want to make realistic claims for it, either.
Yes, the money spent on it was spent in the United States; we
didn't import Moon rockets from the Moon.
And there were spinoffs.
And the purely economic benefits of the industries spawned by those
spinoff far exceeds the cost of the Apollo program, and continues
to grow.
But if space exploration itself was a useless waste of money -
then those things wouldn't justify it.
You are an idiot.
Something *useful* that
would also be a challenge requiring research and having
spinoffs, like trying to cure cancer or feed the hungry, could
have been attempted instead.
Such as? Be specific. Detail the specific ways in which your
proposal would have produced superior side benefits.

Or not.

Moron.
Then we would have gotten full value for our tax dollars
The return on the investment in basic reseearch from Apollo is at
least an order of magnitude greater than 100%, and probably two.
And continuing to grow.

We got full values.

(And what do you mean "we", Canadian? None of *your* Monopoly
dollars went into it.)
- not
just the economic benefits of spending money at home, and
incidental spinoffs, but what we directly paid for would have
been worth what we paid for it, too.
The medical advances alone have saved millions of lives. Of course,
some of them are probably brown, so that's a negative to you.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Dimensional Traveler
2018-06-06 02:46:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
This is true enough. But spinoffs are side benefits, so we would have more of
them if we were spending the money on finding them directly, one would
presume.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
A space program isn't an efficient way to do medical and electronic research.
The problem with the notion that "we would have more of them if we
were spending the money on finding them directly" is that spending the
money directly nobody would have been looking in the right place to
find them.
Right; when you don't know what is out there to find, having a regimented
program to find it in a scheduled time doesn't work very well. This is the main
issue with trying to explain how basic research works to either administrators
or politicians.
Dave, serendipity is not predictable, by definition
Management is putting together a research group to predict serendipity.
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-06-06 17:25:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
This is true enough. But spinoffs are side benefits, so we
would have more of them if we were spending the money on
finding them directly, one would
presume.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
A space program isn't an efficient way to do medical and
electronic research.
The problem with the notion that "we would have more of them if
we were spending the money on finding them directly" is that
spending the money directly nobody would have been looking in
the right place to find them.
Right; when you don't know what is out there to find, having a
regimented program to find it in a scheduled time doesn't work
very well. This is the main issue with trying to explain how
basic research works to either administrators or politicians.
I'm reminded of a line from the TV show CSI: "If you're looking for
something specific, there's only *one* right answer."
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Dimensional Traveler
2018-06-06 02:44:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
As usual, you're full of shit. Entire industries, espcially
computers and mecial, have been spawned by NASA's programs. Even
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spinoff_technologies
And it's not just economic benefits. The medical technology
developed for the space program has saved millions of lives, as
well.
This is true enough. But spinoffs are side benefits, so we would have more of
them if we were spending the money on finding them directly, one would presume.
A space program isn't an efficient way to do medical and electronic research.
The problem with the notion that "we would have more of them if we
were spending the money on finding them directly" is that spending the
money directly nobody would have been looking in the right place to
find them.
True, that strategy might result in something like vat-girls.
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
puppetsock
2018-06-05 20:39:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 12:48:54 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
[snip]
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
As usual, you're full of shit. Entire industries, espcially
computers and mecial, have been spawned by NASA's programs.
[snap]

That some benefits have accrued from some policy is not,
by itself, a reason to pursue that policy. Some people
can benefit from, for example, robbing a bank. This does
not make bank robbery an attractive occupation.

You need to be able to have at least a plausible case that
the benefits outweigh the costs. And that the costs were
allocated (imposed) at least in some sense reasonably.

If people were allowed to keep their money, are you sure
that they'll just burn it on hookers and blow? Are you
sure that the government knows best? Are you sure that
Burt Rutan, for example, does not know at least as well?

Maybe NASA did an OK job in the 1960s and 1970s. There is
evidence that money spent on their programs in those eras
did actually increase the US economy by more than the
amount spent. Are you sure that greedy individuals would
turn away from this and burn the money on beer and pizza?
The research done by NASA in the 1960s had something like
a 7 to 10 multiplier. That is, each $ they spent on research
became something like $7 to $10 in the economy. Do you
suppose that greedy business types would not be interested?

Hey, you spend $1 researching this new gadget and it will
create a $7 to $10 business for you. Interested? Are you
sure the profit motivated will say "NAH!"

Instead, what is happening, is that the profit motivated
are being taxed at ever increasing percentages. So their
motivation is being channeled into ways of decreasing that
tax rather than finding innovative ways to invest. So we
get Hotblack Desiato level tax returns. And senators for
sale at competitive rates. And a tax code you could use
to block the Mississippi. And we get every stray penny
channeled into the stock market in tax shelters and 401Ks
and pension funds and so tedious on.

Are you sure that's better? Are you sure it's better enough
to justify the IRS?
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-06-05 21:14:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by puppetsock
On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 12:48:54 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula
Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote: [snip]
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
As usual, you're full of shit. Entire industries, espcially
computers and mecial, have been spawned by NASA's programs.
[snap]
That some benefits have accrued from some policy is not,
by itself, a reason to pursue that policy. Some people
can benefit from, for example, robbing a bank. This does
not make bank robbery an attractive occupation.
You need to be able to have at least a plausible case that
the benefits outweigh the costs. And that the costs were
allocated (imposed) at least in some sense reasonably.
The financial benefits of the several multi-billion dollar industries
spawned by the space program far outweight the costs of said program.
And continue to do so, providing millions of jobs.

<rambling idiocy snipped, since your basic premise was actually
agreeing with me>
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
puppetsock
2018-06-06 15:05:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by puppetsock
On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 12:48:54 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula
Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote: [snip]
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
As usual, you're full of shit. Entire industries, espcially
computers and mecial, have been spawned by NASA's programs.
[snap]
That some benefits have accrued from some policy is not,
by itself, a reason to pursue that policy. Some people
can benefit from, for example, robbing a bank. This does
not make bank robbery an attractive occupation.
You need to be able to have at least a plausible case that
the benefits outweigh the costs. And that the costs were
allocated (imposed) at least in some sense reasonably.
The financial benefits of the several multi-billion dollar industries
spawned by the space program far outweight the costs of said program.
And continue to do so, providing millions of jobs.
<rambling idiocy snipped, since your basic premise was actually
agreeing with me>
Since there was no "rambling idiocy," and since assertions
are not arguments, your non-response is noted.

Since you insist on choosing this level of argument, fine.
Get somebody to help you look up the term "opportunity cost."
Get them to help you with the long words.

Then go back and look at the claim again. You need to have
at least a plausible argument that the costs are outweighed
by the benefits. Hint: You have not even identified the costs.

And, you need at least a plausible case that the extraction
of the costs is in some way reasonable. Hint: You just
weak-man that away and never address it at all.

Further hint: When private industry wants to motivate science
research types, they need to find out how to do this. Science
research types are a particular kind of cat. They want, broadly
speaking, a variety of things that come under the heading of
"academic freedom" or similar things. Money is part of it.
But there are lots of other things, such as freedom to publish,
freedom to access other people's work, ability to attend a
conference, ability to have colleagues, etc. etc.

When X-Shiny transistor company wants some research
done, they have to get the prima-donna researches
motivated. So they dump a whack of cash on the
transistor group at a university, and another
on the university, and attach very few strings. They literally
don't care as long as they get their research, and enough
priority to monetize it. The money can go to whatever the
researchers and universities like.

So the university can spend it as they like. On whatever
department they like. Doing whatever university professors like.

So the evidence at hand is, in this situation, private
enterprise will spend about 50% more on pure research,
as compared to government funding.

https://www.amazon.com/Economic-Laws-Scientific-Research/dp/0333657551

The error you have committed is an orphaned statistic.
As I pointed out previously. You point at this good over here
without ever estimating the bad and pain that was required
to produce it. And, the bad isn't only the taxes collected.
Although that is substantial. And these days, that alone
is enough to want to choke off NASA. The cost is that other
things would have been done with that money, by other people,
in other ways. And the evidence at hand indicates it would
have produced much more science and technology to not have
the government meddling in it.
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-06-06 17:41:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I know you are, but what am I?
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
J. Clarke
2018-06-06 00:46:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 13:39:25 -0700 (PDT), puppetsock
Post by puppetsock
[snip]
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
As usual, you're full of shit. Entire industries, espcially
computers and mecial, have been spawned by NASA's programs.
[snap]
That some benefits have accrued from some policy is not,
by itself, a reason to pursue that policy. Some people
can benefit from, for example, robbing a bank. This does
not make bank robbery an attractive occupation.
You need to be able to have at least a plausible case that
the benefits outweigh the costs. And that the costs were
allocated (imposed) at least in some sense reasonably.
If people were allowed to keep their money, are you sure
that they'll just burn it on hookers and blow? Are you
sure that the government knows best? Are you sure that
Burt Rutan, for example, does not know at least as well?
Maybe NASA did an OK job in the 1960s and 1970s. There is
evidence that money spent on their programs in those eras
did actually increase the US economy by more than the
amount spent. Are you sure that greedy individuals would
turn away from this and burn the money on beer and pizza?
The research done by NASA in the 1960s had something like
a 7 to 10 multiplier. That is, each $ they spent on research
became something like $7 to $10 in the economy. Do you
suppose that greedy business types would not be interested?
Hey, you spend $1 researching this new gadget and it will
create a $7 to $10 business for you. Interested? Are you
sure the profit motivated will say "NAH!"
Instead, what is happening, is that the profit motivated
are being taxed at ever increasing percentages.
Check again. In 1960 the highest tax bracket in the US was 90
percent. In 2018 the highest tax bracket is 37 percent.
Post by puppetsock
So their
motivation is being channeled into ways of decreasing that
tax rather than finding innovative ways to invest. So we
get Hotblack Desiato level tax returns. And senators for
sale at competitive rates. And a tax code you could use
to block the Mississippi. And we get every stray penny
channeled into the stock market in tax shelters and 401Ks
and pension funds and so tedious on.
Are you sure that's better? Are you sure it's better enough
to justify the IRS?
Kevrob
2018-06-06 01:17:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 13:39:25 -0700 (PDT), puppetsock
Post by puppetsock
Instead, what is happening, is that the profit motivated
are being taxed at ever increasing percentages.
Check again. In 1960 the highest tax bracket in the US was 90
percent. In 2018 the highest tax bracket is 37 percent.
Personal income tax schedules may have a high marginal rate,
but whether someone who made $Foo nominal dollars in 1960
paid more tax than the earner of the same nominal amount will
for 2018 depends on deductions and credits available and exploited.

Check this article discussing the average effective tax rate
in the two eras.

https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/

Don't confuse "effective tax rate" with "top marginal tax rate."

Kevin R
(IAN a tax professional)
J. Clarke
2018-06-06 02:23:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 13:39:25 -0700 (PDT), puppetsock
Post by puppetsock
Instead, what is happening, is that the profit motivated
are being taxed at ever increasing percentages.
Check again. In 1960 the highest tax bracket in the US was 90
percent. In 2018 the highest tax bracket is 37 percent.
Personal income tax schedules may have a high marginal rate,
but whether someone who made $Foo nominal dollars in 1960
paid more tax than the earner of the same nominal amount will
for 2018 depends on deductions and credits available and exploited.
Check this article discussing the average effective tax rate
in the two eras.
https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/
Don't confuse "effective tax rate" with "top marginal tax rate."
That article does not say that those subject to the 90 percent tax
rate did not pay 90 percent tax, it says that few made that much
money. Which does not mean that the Rockefellers were not paying it.
Post by Kevrob
Kevin R
(IAN a tax professional)
Robert Carnegie
2018-06-06 08:55:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 13:39:25 -0700 (PDT), puppetsock
Post by puppetsock
Instead, what is happening, is that the profit motivated
are being taxed at ever increasing percentages.
Check again. In 1960 the highest tax bracket in the US was 90
percent. In 2018 the highest tax bracket is 37 percent.
Personal income tax schedules may have a high marginal rate,
but whether someone who made $Foo nominal dollars in 1960
paid more tax than the earner of the same nominal amount will
for 2018 depends on deductions and credits available and exploited.
Check this article discussing the average effective tax rate
in the two eras.
https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/
Don't confuse "effective tax rate" with "top marginal tax rate."
That article does not say that those subject to the 90 percent tax
rate did not pay 90 percent tax, it says that few made that much
money. Which does not mean that the Rockefellers were not paying it.
The Rockefellers, and other very rich people,
hire somebody to invent new ways for income to
be disguised, offset, alienated, or misspelled
so that it doesn't get taxed, or not really.
Even if it looks like it did.

Only us little people have "income". I assume
that Rockefeller-type people have better things to
do with their time than to bloviate on social media,
and yes I have heard of President Trump but when
his covfefe gets too embarrassing it's been admitted
that he has people on payroll who do that for him.
(Truthfully or not.)
Kevrob
2018-06-06 11:22:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 13:39:25 -0700 (PDT), puppetsock
Post by puppetsock
Instead, what is happening, is that the profit motivated
are being taxed at ever increasing percentages.
Check again. In 1960 the highest tax bracket in the US was 90
percent. In 2018 the highest tax bracket is 37 percent.
Personal income tax schedules may have a high marginal rate,
but whether someone who made $Foo nominal dollars in 1960
paid more tax than the earner of the same nominal amount will
for 2018 depends on deductions and credits available and exploited.
Check this article discussing the average effective tax rate
in the two eras.
https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/
Don't confuse "effective tax rate" with "top marginal tax rate."
That article does not say that those subject to the 90 percent tax
rate did not pay 90 percent tax, it says that few made that much
money. Which does not mean that the Rockefellers were not paying it.
The Rockefellers, and other very rich people,
hire somebody to invent new ways for income to
be disguised, offset, alienated, or misspelled
so that it doesn't get taxed, or not really.
Even if it looks like it did.
Only us little people have "income". I assume
that Rockefeller-type people have better things to
do with their time than to bloviate on social media,
and yes I have heard of President Trump but when
his covfefe gets too embarrassing it's been admitted
that he has people on payroll who do that for him.
(Truthfully or not.)
...and the higher the marginal tax rate, the more attractive
tax shelters and "aggressive tax avoidance" are. At lower marginal
rates, J Random Kennedy* gets a lesser return from contorting
his or her cash flow in "creative" ways. This is one reason
why advocates of a few-deductions, flat income tax, or one
with fewer separate rates back plans like that. In theory,
there would be less distortion to the economy, and people would
make investment and employment decisions based on expected risk
and reward, rather than tax consequences.

Like a lot of economic observations, this is a generalization
that is truer at the margin then when applied to every dollar.

Kevin R

* actually, the Kennedys rely on sophisticated trusts
to minimize tax impact, especially from the estate tax
and capital gains taxes.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlodonnell/2014/07/08/how-the-1-billion-kennedy-family-fortune-defies-death-and-taxes-3/#3dae045b4e4a
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-06-06 17:40:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by Robert Carnegie
On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 18:17:04 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob
On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 8:46:43 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 13:39:25 -0700 (PDT), puppetsock
Post by puppetsock
Instead, what is happening, is that the profit motivated
are being taxed at ever increasing percentages.
Check again. In 1960 the highest tax bracket in the US
was 90 percent. In 2018 the highest tax bracket is 37
percent.
Personal income tax schedules may have a high marginal rate,
but whether someone who made $Foo nominal dollars in 1960
paid more tax than the earner of the same nominal amount
will for 2018 depends on deductions and credits available
and exploited.
Check this article discussing the average effective tax rate
in the two eras.
https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/
Don't confuse "effective tax rate" with "top marginal tax
rate."
That article does not say that those subject to the 90
percent tax rate did not pay 90 percent tax, it says that few
made that much money. Which does not mean that the
Rockefellers were not paying it.
The Rockefellers, and other very rich people,
hire somebody to invent new ways for income to
be disguised, offset, alienated, or misspelled
so that it doesn't get taxed, or not really.
Even if it looks like it did.
Only us little people have "income". I assume
that Rockefeller-type people have better things to
do with their time than to bloviate on social media,
and yes I have heard of President Trump but when
his covfefe gets too embarrassing it's been admitted
that he has people on payroll who do that for him.
(Truthfully or not.)
...and the higher the marginal tax rate, the more attractive
tax shelters and "aggressive tax avoidance" are. At lower
marginal rates, J Random Kennedy* gets a lesser return from
contorting his or her cash flow in "creative" ways. This is one
reason why advocates of a few-deductions, flat income tax, or
one with fewer separate rates back plans like that. In theory,
there would be less distortion to the economy, and people would
make investment and employment decisions based on expected risk
and reward, rather than tax consequences.
Tax consequences are part of the expected risk and reward.
Post by Kevrob
Like a lot of economic observations, this is a generalization
that is truer at the margin then when applied to every dollar.
Mostly, it's a generalization that is far more propaganda than
fact. The top 0.1% of those who file tax returns in the US pay 20%
of the income tax collected. The top 1% pay 38%. Both run about 27%
effective tax rate, and this is higher than any other category.

Corporations (large ones with international scope, at any rate) go
through all sorts of contortions to avoid paying income tax. But
their revenue ends up in someone's hands eventually, and that
someone gets taxed on it. Many see corporate income tax as double
taxation.

(And flat tax is stupid, and utterly unworkable. How's that for a
troll?)
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-06-06 17:34:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Carnegie
On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 18:17:04 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 13:39:25 -0700 (PDT), puppetsock
Post by puppetsock
Instead, what is happening, is that the profit motivated
are being taxed at ever increasing percentages.
Check again. In 1960 the highest tax bracket in the US was
90 percent. In 2018 the highest tax bracket is 37 percent.
Personal income tax schedules may have a high marginal rate,
but whether someone who made $Foo nominal dollars in 1960
paid more tax than the earner of the same nominal amount will
for 2018 depends on deductions and credits available and
exploited.
Check this article discussing the average effective tax rate
in the two eras.
https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/
Don't confuse "effective tax rate" with "top marginal tax
rate."
That article does not say that those subject to the 90 percent
tax rate did not pay 90 percent tax, it says that few made that
much money. Which does not mean that the Rockefellers were not
paying it.
The Rockefellers, and other very rich people,
hire somebody to invent new ways for income to
be disguised, offset, alienated, or misspelled
so that it doesn't get taxed, or not really.
Even if it looks like it did.
And you can, of course, provide us with credible documentation to
back that allegation up, right? Detailed analysis, based on
verifiable sources? No? Then you're just parroting other people's
propaganda.
Post by Robert Carnegie
Only us little people have "income".
"Us"? IIRC, you're not in the US, so you are even less qualified to
talk about US tax codes than most. And you have a long history of
blind bigotry rooted in your insane jealously of the only remaining
superpower.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
puppetsock
2018-06-06 19:32:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 4:55:20 AM UTC-4, Robert Carnegie wrote:
[snip]
Post by Robert Carnegie
The Rockefellers, and other very rich people,
hire somebody to invent new ways for income to
be disguised, offset, alienated, or misspelled
so that it doesn't get taxed, or not really.
Even if it looks like it did.
Yes. The people they hire are frequently referred to
as "senator" and "congress man." Even "congress woman."

This is true of many large corporations, as well as
the "whale" rich folk. Plus various other entities
such as unions, interest groups, pension funds, city
governments, etc. etc. The return from investing in
a member of government can be, if you are ruthless and
sufficiently non-moral about it, can be much larger
than any other investment.

Microsoft once-upon-a-time didn't go in much for running
to Washington and whingeing to politicians. Then they got
smacked with various anti-trust crap. Now they have just as
many lobbyists and back-door leeches as any other big company.
And, hey presto, they don't get bugged about anti-trust any
more. It's like magic.

The purpose of a system is what it does.

The purpose of the tax system is to enrich the members of
government with the least ethics. And to push any other
"big fish" into the system, or risk being destroyed.

Does it help any of the things it is claimed to pay for?
I think you'd be hard pressed to demonstrate it. Especially
when you notice that much of the difficulties in doing the
things that "need subsidy" are due to the completely artificial
difficulties created by the very tax system used to collect
the money for those subsidies.

It creates the disease and then sells you a fake partial cure.
Chrysi Cat
2018-06-08 23:55:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by puppetsock
[snip]
Post by Robert Carnegie
The Rockefellers, and other very rich people,
hire somebody to invent new ways for income to
be disguised, offset, alienated, or misspelled
so that it doesn't get taxed, or not really.
Even if it looks like it did.
Yes. The people they hire are frequently referred to
as "senator" and "congress man." Even "congress woman."
This is true of many large corporations, as well as
the "whale" rich folk. Plus various other entities
such as unions, interest groups, pension funds, city
governments, etc. etc. The return from investing in
a member of government can be, if you are ruthless and
sufficiently non-moral about it, can be much larger
than any other investment.
Microsoft once-upon-a-time didn't go in much for running
to Washington and whingeing to politicians. Then they got
smacked with various anti-trust crap. Now they have just as
many lobbyists and back-door leeches as any other big company.
And, hey presto, they don't get bugged about anti-trust any
more. It's like magic.
The purpose of a system is what it does.
The purpose of the tax system is to enrich the members of
government with the least ethics. And to push any other
"big fish" into the system, or risk being destroyed.
Does it help any of the things it is claimed to pay for?
I think you'd be hard pressed to demonstrate it. Especially
when you notice that much of the difficulties in doing the
things that "need subsidy" are due to the completely artificial
difficulties created by the very tax system used to collect
the money for those subsidies.
It creates the disease and then sells you a fake partial cure.
I'm hearing "there should be no income tax, no environmental
regulations, and if someone's unemployable, they should be taken care of
by the kindness of charity. Which will all have religious strings in my
ideal world, because without taxes, the non-religious will no longer
have any reason to fund them". Am I close?

Ms. Rand, please release your hold on that body. Yours has been dead for
40 years, and it's time you gave up possession and moved on. :-p
--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!
puppetsock
2018-06-11 21:04:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 7:55:52 PM UTC-4, Chrysi Cat wrote:
[snip]
I'm hearing ...
[snip]

Oh! This straw is sour!

a425couple
2018-06-06 16:06:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by a425couple
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by a425couple
Post by Kevrob
Post by a425couple
from
http://thehill.com/opinion/technology/390092-when-did-we-stop-thinking-big-save-the-international-space-station
(Or - when did our future plans start to wildly separate
from our good sci-fi books?)
Or: Texas pols are defending their pork?
I could be convince that keeping the High Ground might be
a military necessity, but other than that, the whole "the Feds
have top pay for basic science" rationale, is, as a general rule,
unconstitutional.
Kevin R
It sounds like you definitely believe that exploration,
and colonization of space should be up to private
citizens and corporations.
Is that true?
Kevrob is a full on libertarian where government is evil and private
industry is perfectly trustworthy...
Are you confident, that citizens, if they were allowed to
vote on the subject, would vote to approve their government
spend money on space exploration?
Here is one person, who has decided to fund things.
If he and Musk (plus perhaps others) decide to push
for full development, how will governments interfere?

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/jeff-bezos-thinks-his-fortune-is-best-spent-in-space-2018-05-01

Jeff Bezos thinks his fortune is best spent in space

Published: May 1, 2018 8:03 p.m. ET

Critics offer suggestions on how his wealth can be better spent closer
to home

By MIKE MURPHY EDITOR

Jeff Bezos has so much money he doesn’t know what to do with it all, so
he figures he’d might as well spend it on spaceships.

That’s what the Amazon.com Inc. AMZN, +0.41% founder and chief
executive told Mathias Döpfner, the CEO of Business Insider parent Axel
Springer, in an interview published over the weekend.

“The only way that I can see to deploy this much financial resource is
by converting my Amazon winnings into space travel. That is basically it.”
Jeff Bezos
Bezos is worth about $131 billion, according to Forbes’ latest calculations.

And while those billions were largely built on e-commerce and cloud
computing, Bezos told Döpfner that his space company, Blue Origin, is
his most important work.

“I’m pursuing this work, because I believe if we don’t we will
eventually end up with a civilization of stasis, which I find very
demoralizing,” he said about his goals of space exploration — and
eventually colonization. “I am very lucky that I feel like I have a
mission-driven purpose with Blue Origin that is, I think, incredibly
important for civilization long term. And I am going to use my financial
lottery winnings from Amazon to fund that.”

Bezos said he’s spending about $1 billion a year to fund Blue Origin.

But while Bezos did mention philanthropic efforts, such as combating
homelessness, many on social media found his priorities to be lacking —
especially when compared to fellow Seattle-area billionaire Bill Gates,
who has pledged to give away the bulk of his fortune and has already
donated more than $40 billion through his foundation. Some noted Bezos
could use his massive wealth to fight hunger, improve Amazon workers’
salaries or pay his full share of taxes.

DANNY ALLCAPS PAGE
@DannyPage
Bezos: "I have no idea what to do with all this money!"
me: pay your workers a living wage
Bezos: "Look at this 'Amazon Winnings', just so much."
me: pay your taxes
Bezos: "sooo muchhhh money"
me: It'd cost only $55M to fix Flint
Bezos: "I should buy a rocket ship."
https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/991344303594237952 …

10:26 AM - May 1, 2018
14.2K
8,088 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
View image on TwitterView image on Twitter

David Sirota

@davidsirota
A sizable amount of Jeff Bezos’ workforce is paid so little that they
need to rely on food stamps — and yet Bezos says the only way he could
possible spend his “Amazon winnings” is on space travel. Maybe he
shoulda just said “let them eat cake” — it woulda been more succinct.

1:08 PM - May 1, 2018
1,904
1,225 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Paige Cornwell

@pgcornwell
Mr. Bezos, 1 in 16 public school students is homeless in the city
where you built your empire. Perhaps that might be a good use of your
financial resource?
https://twitter.com/catclifford/status/991013181182103552 …

1:27 PM - May 1, 2018
176
70 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Dae Shik Kim Hawkins Jr.
@daedaejr
Bezos Amazon is located in Seattle and has contributed to having the
avg home price in Seattle inch closer to $1million. Avg 1 bdr apt will
cost you over 2k to rent. Over 14,000 homeless people in Seattle. All
while the avg Amazon employee makes just 30k a year.

But...space 👽 https://twitter.com/catclifford/status/991013181182103552 …

10:24 AM - May 1, 2018 · Seattle, WA
2,406
1,208 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Stagger Lee Shot First

@elongreen
bezos could, if he wanted to, restore his employees' retirement
benefits
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/washington-post-announces-cuts-to-employees-retirement-benefits/2014/09/23/f485981a-436d-11e4-b437-1a7368204804_story.html?utm_term=.1aa0003001a3


11:47 AM - May 1, 2018

Washington Post announces cuts to employees’ retirement benefits
Changes cover nonunion employees, and the company will seek similar
changes for union-covered workers.

washingtonpost.com
480
167 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter

Amanda Smith
@AmandaRTubbs
Jeff Bezos spending his Amazon earnings.

3:13 PM - May 1, 2018
108K
29.7K people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
To be sure, Bezos is not shooting all his money into space. Last year,
Bezos made his first large philanthropic donation — $35 million to fund
cancer research. Last June he also asked for suggestions on what causes
he could donate to that would help “people in the here and now — short
term,” and in response pledged $33 million for scholarships for
so-called “Dreamers.”
Kevrob
2018-06-04 17:12:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by a425couple
Post by Kevrob
Post by a425couple
from
http://thehill.com/opinion/technology/390092-when-did-we-stop-thinking-big-save-the-international-space-station
(Or - when did our future plans start to wildly separate
from our good sci-fi books?)
Or: Texas pols are defending their pork?
I could be convince that keeping the High Ground might be
a military necessity, but other than that, the whole "the Feds
have top pay for basic science" rationale, is, as a general rule,
unconstitutional.
Kevin R
It sounds like you definitely believe that exploration,
and colonization of space should be up to private
citizens and corporations.
Is that true?
Non-governmental non-profit organizations could back research
flights. A consortium of great, private universities and
foundations, perhaps?
Post by h***@gmail.com
Kevrob is a full on libertarian where government is evil
I'm a libertarian minarchist. Too much government is evil,
and I have a lower threshold for "too much" than most.

I did, in my original post, allow as how space tech is necessary
for the military, in this day and age. Many of the private space
launch companies have military contracts, which is probably a
financially prudent option. Some launches and vehicles are bound
to be "military only," letting NASA but no private contractors
participate, but I'd assume those would be the most classified ones.
Post by h***@gmail.com
and private industry is perfectly trustworthy...
Which I have never said. I do prefer social power be distributed,
which One Big Program run by the government militates against.
So would an "East India Company... IN SPACE!!!!" for that matter,
were it handed an exclusive franchise. International agreements
about space would probably preclude that setup, but as Dean Swift
wrote: "..promises and Pye-crusts are made to be broken." (Lenin
quoted Swift without attribution.)

Kevin R
a425couple
2018-06-03 23:50:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by a425couple
Post by Kevrob
Post by a425couple
from
http://thehill.com/opinion/technology/390092-when-did-we-stop-thinking-big-save-the-international-space-station
(Or - when did our future plans start to wildly separate
from our good sci-fi books?)
Or: Texas pols are defending their pork?
I could be convince that keeping the High Ground might be
a military necessity, but other than that, the whole "the Feds
have top pay for basic science" rationale, is, as a general rule,
unconstitutional.
Kevin R
It sounds like you definitely believe that exploration,
and colonization of space should be up to private
citizens and corporations.
Is that true?
So, the debate of how much searching we should do
on Mars for existing life, would be rapidly put
aside for one organization's determination to
create and disseminate our alterations of life?
And Mars should be colonized if a way can be found
to do it profitably?
(As in the debate that got resolved by somewhat
unilateral private action in Kim Stanley Robinson's
"Red Mars".)
Are their any good sci-fi novels, that have a
wide open rush into space, as in a modernized
version of:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Rush_of_1889
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cimarron_(1960_film)
"Tom, whose own oil-rich land has made him wealthy, laughs
and says that it is he, not the Indians, who owns the oil rights."

Hmmm, if there are Martians, like the ones Robert
Heinlein wrote about in "Stranger in a Strange Land",
that might not go well!!!!!!!!!!! For them, or for
all of Earth!

But, in a way, the Oklahoma Land Rush, was not as
much anarchy, as a rush into space might become.
After all, the U. S. government was in control.
David DeLaney
2018-06-04 06:18:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by a425couple
Are their any good sci-fi novels, that have a
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Rush_of_1889
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cimarron_(1960_film)
"Tom, whose own oil-rich land has made him wealthy, laughs
and says that it is he, not the Indians, who owns the oil rights."
James Blish, _Cities in Flight_ tetralogy?

Dave, along another dimension, Pratchett/Baxter's Long Earth series
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Sjouke Burry
2018-06-04 21:04:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David DeLaney
Post by a425couple
Are their any good sci-fi novels, that have a
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Rush_of_1889
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cimarron_(1960_film)
"Tom, whose own oil-rich land has made him wealthy, laughs
and says that it is he, not the Indians, who owns the oil rights."
James Blish, _Cities in Flight_ tetralogy?
Dave, along another dimension, Pratchett/Baxter's Long Earth series
'And Then There Were None' by Eric Frank Russell - Abelard.org
www.abelard.org/e-f-russell.php
'And, sir, if only I could have him in the space troops for a few months
I'd ... He reflected briefly, suggested, 'If it were left to me I'd
bring him in by force with an armed escort. ...... He had walked fast
three-quarters of a mile from the Blieder room.
Lynn McGuire
2018-06-04 20:56:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 6/3/2018 6:50 PM, a425couple wrote:
...
Post by a425couple
Are their any good sci-fi novels, that have a
wide open rush into space, as in a modernized
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Rush_of_1889
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cimarron_(1960_film)
...

The Thunder and Lightening series by John Varley
https://www.amazon.com/Red-Thunder-Lightning-Novel/dp/0441011624/

Varley invents a new power source using serious handwavium and everybody
and their dog is heading off the planet using any somewhat sturdy box
that they can find.

Lynn
Quadibloc
2018-06-05 08:12:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
The Thunder and Lightening series by John Varley
https://www.amazon.com/Red-Thunder-Lightning-Novel/dp/0441011624/
Varley invents a new power source using serious handwavium and everybody
and their dog is heading off the planet using any somewhat sturdy box
that they can find.
Presumably in addition to this power source, they also have technology where you
can download the genomes of every species on Earth off the Internet, and
biological 3d printers with which to put that data to use, along with other
handy terraforming essentials available at the corner hardware store?

Otherwise, just where is one going to _go_ with one's sturdy box?

Now, if he came up with an FTL drive along with an energy source, I suppose
people could comb the galaxy for Earth-like planets, and in old-style SF they
would have an actual chance of finding them.

John Savard
Lynn McGuire
2018-06-05 17:40:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Lynn McGuire
The Thunder and Lightening series by John Varley
https://www.amazon.com/Red-Thunder-Lightning-Novel/dp/0441011624/
Varley invents a new power source using serious handwavium and everybody
and their dog is heading off the planet using any somewhat sturdy box
that they can find.
Presumably in addition to this power source, they also have technology where you
can download the genomes of every species on Earth off the Internet, and
biological 3d printers with which to put that data to use, along with other
handy terraforming essentials available at the corner hardware store?
Otherwise, just where is one going to _go_ with one's sturdy box?
Now, if he came up with an FTL drive along with an energy source, I suppose
people could comb the galaxy for Earth-like planets, and in old-style SF they
would have an actual chance of finding them.
John Savard
When one has an infinite power source, take a big old rock say 3 miles
by 8 miles, hollow it out, and build yourself a generation starship that
can travel at 0.3 C and head out to New Earth with 10,000 of your new
friends. The new serious handwavium power source includes a stasis
chamber so you can take multitudes of samples, people, etc.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00G3L130Q/

Lynn
Loading...