4 ms·
Is SpaceX urging congress to raise their taxes to pay for more staffing? I doubt it.
by erellsworth 3y ago
Is SpaceX urging congress to raise their taxes to pay for more staffing? I doubt it.
- esarbe 3y agoCame here to ask this, pleasantly surprised to find it already asked.
- boxed 3y agoIt's answered by the article..
- pfannkuchen 3y agoDo you seriously think they wouldn't pay for the additional staff directly out of pocket if they were allowed to? Seems like an obvious and easy win as far as business investments go.
- boxed 3y agoRegulatory capture is a danger there. But yea, the article says they suggested it at least as an interim solution.
- nickthegreek 3y agoSo you want the 3rd party agency responsible for review to be paid for by the company that wants the review...
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> you want the 3rd party agency responsible for review to be paid for by the company that wants the review No, they're saying that the not "urging congress to raise their taxes" take is a straw man.
- wenebego 3y agoOkay so if you dont want either of those things, where does the money come from?
- hef19898 3y agoThe tax payer, Musk cannot be bothered either way with all the world saving stuff he does.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> if you dont want either of those things, where does the money come from? I don't see a problem with higher use fees for frequent funding new hires. I can't imagine SpaceX would, either. Plenty of regulators charge application fees without getting compromised.
- edgyquant 3y agoAgain, this is a strawman. No one should engage with this question.
- hersko 3y agoThat's only for the pharmaceutical industry.
- hedora 3y agoThey could charge $20M for each application round. That'd provide enough staff. The agency would have a financial motivation to incorrectly reject applications, which is better than having a financial motivation to rubber-stamp them. (Both things are bad, but incorrect reject is slightly better.)
- bryanlarsen 3y agoRocketLab charges ~$7M per launch.
- marcosdumay 3y agoI don't know how the FAA operates, but that's a perfectly reasonable model. They are still government employees. Where the government takes the money from has little impact on their goals.
- themgt 3y agofunding the Federal Aviation Administration, included $37.854 million for its Office of Commercial Space Transportation. The office, which received $32.47 million in fiscal year 2022, requested $42.5 million for 2023. We're talking about maybe an extra $20 million. The idea this demands some reassessment of federal tax policy to meet the funding requirements is just hilariously transparent and nonsensical axe-grinding. [1] https://spacenews.com/omnibus-includes-budget-increases-for-office-of-space-commerce-and-faa-commercial-space-office https://spacenews.com/omnibus-includes-budget-increases-for-...
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- jve 3y agoI have a question: Does it cost something for SpaceX or anyone to get paperwork for new vehicles, existing changes, regular launches, object movements etc. ? If it had a price tag, well, the companies would surely pay for their services, right? The more job there is to do that means the more FAA would get paid.
- snarfy 3y agoDoes SpaceX pay a fair share of taxes or do they weasel out of it like every big corporation?
- bryanlarsen 3y agoThey don't pay taxes, since they aren't profitable. Their core business (launching Falcon9 etc) is highly profitable, but is a small B billion business. OTOH their new businesses (Starlink and Starship) require $10B+ investments.
- netbioserror 3y agoWhat does it matter? We have a money printer.
- edgyquant 3y agoWe’ve had to enact generationally high interest rates to try and fix money printer issues. Money printing is not the answer here
- netbioserror 3y agoWhy tax? There's a money printer. What's a few billion more on the yearly interest payments to the Fed?