[wolfram74]

starlink is low enough that it will clean itself /relatively/ quickly, but even doubling the elevation get's into some very long lived debris[0].

If you wanted to tax these mega constellations to mitigate the externality they're causing, directing 2 to 3% towards orbital telescope production/launch costs arguably would be the most immediate remedy.

[0]https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1407747990287171587

[s1artibartfast]

Any profit of US constellations will already be taxed at the 21‰ federal corporate income tax rate, so that already seems to be a moot point.

[foerbert]

No, it's not. These are relatively new problems posed by specific companies. If we say part of their taxes go to solving this problem they caused, then what about all the other things their taxes were going to before?

It's roughly similar to suggesting a tiered membership service should upgrade all customers to the highest tier without charging any more than they did last month.

[s1artibartfast]

The taxes don't exist prior to satellite network, so there is no before. Growing the economy grows tax revenues and adds new revenue to the federal budget.

It is like adding a new customer to your license membership service. Marginal costs are zero but they add to revenue. You can then use the extra revenue to develop new features.

[foerbert]

That's not a workable position. By that measure a new industry that blows up significant fractions of major population centers for pennies - but pays taxes on those pennies - is a net producer of new tax revenue and should be considered a net benefit.

Yes, obviously, in this highly contrived example there are many other non-tax laws and reasons this company could never exist. But I think it still demonstrates the point that a new industry that produces new taxes is not inherently a good thing even if you limit the scope to simply government revenue.

I don't believe there is a perfect view of these things, but at least taking the tack I originally expressed is more workable than this.

[s1artibartfast]

>new industry that produces new taxes is not inherently a good thing.

I think you are making different point than in the last post. I never suggested this. I agree that new companies can theoretically cause externalities that cost the government more than their taxes.

My point is that in this case SpaceX taxes are not pre-allocated to cover government costs incurred by SpaceX. SpaceX isn't increasing the number of people on welfare, teachers, defense budget, ect. In fact, SpaceX existing saves the government huge amounts of money on launch costs.

[foerbert]

Maybe I worded my original post poorly then, as that was the idea I was trying to convey.

And you're right. As I said, I don't think there is a perfect way to view these things. However I do think that viewing those taxes as pre-allocated is a reasonable easy heuristic. Otherwise every single externality has to be rather thoroughly investigated. Is it already known and accounted for? If it is not accounted for, is it intentionally not accounted for or is the externality actually entirely unforeseen? How much does the externality actually cost? How much additional revenue does the company/industry causing this externality bring in and how does it compare, etc etc etc.

Not viewing those taxes as pre-allocated to existing programs essentially leads to immediately discounting any new externality because of the sheer complexity of trying to figure out the exact dollar amounts involved. Many externalities do not even have an objective dollar cost from which to start the accounting.

Even if you wish to continue with SpaceX, how do we account for them properly? They may be saving the government money on launch costs, but they are also deriving an unusually high benefit from our public education system. I'd assume they are also putting more wear on our road system than many companies. And that's not even scratching the surface. And SpaceX isn't even the whole industry.

Much, much easier to view taxes as essentially pre-allocated first and then figure out how you want to deal with things more specifically later. At least it gives us a tractable starting point.

[Beached]

that's assuming there are no deductions. I'm willing to bet every rocket explosion we see, is written off as r&d expenses and reducing their taxable revenue.

in a company as fast paced as SpaceX, I doubt they pay much in taxes yet.

[s1artibartfast]

I'm Confused, what would the lower 3% tax be on if not profit?

[CamperBob2]

What debris? There won't be any debris unless they hit each other. The SVs themselves are designed to decay after a relatively short period of time.

Agreed, though, I like the idea of taxing them to subsidize space telescope construction.