5 ms·

Is that like advocating for net neutrality because everyone should pay the same rate for Internet access, but those who can pay more, should pay more when it co

Is that like advocating for net neutrality because everyone should pay the same rate for Internet access, but those who can pay more, should pay more when it comes to paying taxes?

skummetmaelk 9y ago
Wealthy pay the same price per kWh as people who are poor. They also pay the same rate for water and other utilities. If you frame the net neutrality issue as a tax, then sure, set up some rules and make wealthy corps pay more. I can't believe you don't see it being abused by telecompanies within days though.
- bsbechtel 9y ago
  My point was more in response to the OP's comment about contradictory ideas and circular logic.
  - breatheoften 9y ago
    The parent was expressing surprise that libertarians are not worried about "blowback" against market players who actively mislead society about the negative externalities of their business activities. My comment was about how libertarians are never worried about such things -- that in fact the idea of a market player paying for a negative externality is explicitly against their convoluted philosophical perspective. I was arguing that it's wrong to have an expectation for a libertarian to behave rationally when a negative externality is involved. Nothing about your comment seems to be related -- I'm gathering you are trying to use some kind of slippery slope analogy to show that my thinking when expanded to some imaginary limit actually yields some sort of undesirable result. Thanks I guess -- I suppose next time I make a comment about how environmental damage is mispriced by the market that I will consider the implications of my words when they are reinterpreted randomly as a somehow specific comment about net neutrality ... On the other hand -- thank you for demonstrating very well the exact experience of having a discussion with a libertarian -- I often find it to be an exercise in being confronted with random analogies designed to separate the topic from any arena of specific facts.
- cstejerean 9y ago
  That's actually not entirely correct at least where I live (Seattle area). The first X kWh or gallons of water are at a lower rate. The idea is that smaller houses requiring less power and water can pay less whereas larger ones end up paying more because they will exceed the discounted tier. It's not exactly charged based on your income but it's closely correlated. If my internet was billed like my water bill then it would be something like $20/month for access $1/GB for first 50 GB download $2/GB for any GB over 50 download $5/GB for upload traffic And that would be the city rate, and on top of that there would be extra charges per GB for the county because, and a whole bunch of surcharges and taxes. I for one am glad that internet is not billed like my water is.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- DanBC 9y ago
  >Wealthy pay the same price per kWh as people who are poor. They also pay the same rate for water and other utilities. This isn't always true in the UK. Wealthy people can afford to pay by direct debit, which almost always carries some discounts. They can also shop around and change supplier. Poor people sometimes get locked into a more expensive supplier because they have to clear their bill before they change, and they can't afford to immediately pay that debt. And some people are on prepayment meters which are usually more expensive than standard rates.
  - cortic 9y ago
    There is also a fixed fee per day of around 30p (which hits poor people harder as its a bigger part of their bill). As well as a higher rate for the first (6KWh? tariff dependent, though common) and a lower rate for every KWh after that (meaning a lower average for richer/bigger households)..

Is that like advocating for net neutrality because everyone should pay the same rate for Internet access, but those who can pay more, should pay more when it comes to paying taxes?

skummetmaelk 9y ago

Wealthy pay the same price per kWh as people who are poor. They also pay the same rate for water and other utilities. If you frame the net neutrality issue as a tax, then sure, set up some rules and make wealthy corps pay more. I can't believe you don't see it being abused by telecompanies within days though.

bsbechtel 9y ago
My point was more in response to the OP's comment about contradictory ideas and circular logic.
- breatheoften 9y ago
  The parent was expressing surprise that libertarians are not worried about "blowback" against market players who actively mislead society about the negative externalities of their business activities. My comment was about how libertarians are never worried about such things -- that in fact the idea of a market player paying for a negative externality is explicitly against their convoluted philosophical perspective. I was arguing that it's wrong to have an expectation for a libertarian to behave rationally when a negative externality is involved. Nothing about your comment seems to be related -- I'm gathering you are trying to use some kind of slippery slope analogy to show that my thinking when expanded to some imaginary limit actually yields some sort of undesirable result. Thanks I guess -- I suppose next time I make a comment about how environmental damage is mispriced by the market that I will consider the implications of my words when they are reinterpreted randomly as a somehow specific comment about net neutrality ... On the other hand -- thank you for demonstrating very well the exact experience of having a discussion with a libertarian -- I often find it to be an exercise in being confronted with random analogies designed to separate the topic from any arena of specific facts.
cstejerean 9y ago
That's actually not entirely correct at least where I live (Seattle area). The first X kWh or gallons of water are at a lower rate. The idea is that smaller houses requiring less power and water can pay less whereas larger ones end up paying more because they will exceed the discounted tier. It's not exactly charged based on your income but it's closely correlated. If my internet was billed like my water bill then it would be something like $20/month for access $1/GB for first 50 GB download $2/GB for any GB over 50 download $5/GB for upload traffic And that would be the city rate, and on top of that there would be extra charges per GB for the county because, and a whole bunch of surcharges and taxes. I for one am glad that internet is not billed like my water is.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
DanBC 9y ago
>Wealthy pay the same price per kWh as people who are poor. They also pay the same rate for water and other utilities. This isn't always true in the UK. Wealthy people can afford to pay by direct debit, which almost always carries some discounts. They can also shop around and change supplier. Poor people sometimes get locked into a more expensive supplier because they have to clear their bill before they change, and they can't afford to immediately pay that debt. And some people are on prepayment meters which are usually more expensive than standard rates.
- cortic 9y ago
  There is also a fixed fee per day of around 30p (which hits poor people harder as its a bigger part of their bill). As well as a higher rate for the first (6KWh? tariff dependent, though common) and a lower rate for every KWh after that (meaning a lower average for richer/bigger households)..