4 ms·

> Government is funded by taxes from the people who live in the municipality. Even if they offer it for "free", everyone in the area gets the benefit of it. Bu

> Government is funded by taxes from the people who live in the municipality. Even if they offer it for "free", everyone in the area gets the benefit of it. But if I wish to purchase internet from a different provider, I still have to subsidize other people's internet. I'm forced to pay for something whether I use it or not.

fabbari 5y ago
You can get you own armed guards - but you will still subsidize other people's police force. You pay taxes to provide a minimum service to all of the community, you can then take advantage of it or not - that's your prerogative. I pay for school taxes, but I don't have kids - should I get my money back?
- Spivak 5y ago
  This line of reasoning could be used to justify government expansion into literally any market. Given that most people don’t want government providing services in every market there has to be some other factor that limits the scope which is where the disagreement lives. Government mediating equal access to last mile lines and funding their construction — probably good to everyone. Government running consumer ISPs end-to-end is a tougher sell.
  - 8note 5y ago
    Having a government provided baseline for all markets sounds great. Private business should justify itself by doing better and ensuring nobody wants the public version -- which also ensures the public version stays cheap. [Expensive per unit, but inexpensive overall]
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- nickff 5y ago
  I understand you're trying to use examples that seem clear to you, but you're begging more questions than you answer: >" You can get you own armed guards - but you will still subsidize other people's police force." Why? This is an especially open question in areas with large police forces and high crime rates, or histories of police abuse of power. >"You pay taxes to provide a minimum service to all of the community, you can then take advantage of it or not - that's your prerogative." Again, why? What's 'a minimum service to the community'? Do you mean public goods, or services that have positive externalities, or things that help the poor? >"I pay for school taxes, but I don't have kids - should I get my money back?" Maybe! Depends on your beliefs surrounding political authority and ethics. Perhaps you might do better to point to your ethical framework, and highlight what it means with respect to municipal fiber.
  - FactolSarin 5y ago
    Public Schools aren't just benefiting people with kids. It benefits society (a society you and OP are members of). Getting rid of schools is like getting rid of the military. Maybe you feel like you don't personally benefit from it and you want your taxes back, but that's not how it works. Not should it. An ideal government functions to help the people not individual persons.
    - nickff 5y ago
      >”Getting rid of schools is like getting rid of the military.” I see national defense and public schools as very different. Defense is a non-excludable, fixed cost, so-called ‘public good’. Primary and secondary education are not public goods, though they may be long-term investments (which defense is not). I am not saying that I ‘like’ or ‘dislike’ either, but they’re very different. >”An ideal government functions to help the people not individual persons.” I’ve never heard this argument before, could you please elaborate, or point to a good source for your “ideal government” ethical framework?
      - 8note 5y ago
        Defense seems very excludable. If I've got a gun, I'm doing the defense by myself. No need to pay for aircraft carriers in the middle of the unpopulated ocean
asdff 5y ago
That's how taxes work. I don't have any children, but my taxes fund schools. My house isn't burning down, but my taxes fund fire departments. I don't commute with a car, but my taxes fund bridges and highways. There is a net economic benefit to pulling your fellow person out of the gutter when it comes to some things. We are all richer because we have an educated populace, cities that don't burn down, highways to move people and goods. To put it into HN friendly terms, all of these benefits increase the quality of our labor, which increases our valuation in the eyes of global investors and makes them want to invest in American companies and keep us paid and employed. And who knows, some day you might need help out of the gutter, too, or a fire put out.
- patrickthebold 5y ago
  I realize this isn't your point, but one of my pet peeves is about 'your taxes paying for other people's kids'. Everyone gets to go to school for free, your taxes should be thought of as paying off your own education. It seems silly to me that someone goes through public schools, then doesn't have kids and starts complaining that schools don't benefit them and they shouldn't have to pay.
  - SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
    >Everyone gets to go to school for free, your taxes should be thought of as paying off your own education. Are you sure you want to make the argument that a public school education cost you many many times what a private school education would paid over a lifetime of taxes? Of course not. There is nothing wrong with the argument you are paying for other people's kids. You are. It's a net good for society. I personal don't want roving gangs of uneducated youths who today are confined to schools all day, this is a big win for everyone. The day-prison system works well unless you're really interested in high quality education. Deal with it, don't make weird excuses and pretend scenarios (like mine above).
  - edmundsauto 5y ago
    > Everyone gets to go to school for free, your taxes should be thought of as paying off your own education. What makes you think this is the correct perspective? Many Americans had parents who were educated abroad or not at all (if I'm paying for my education, what did my parents pay for?). Further, my education was less expensive than my education-focused-taxes are now - if I really were paying just for myself, shouldn't it be an inflation adjusted amount? Instead, I pay what it costs to educate a kid today.
r00fus 5y ago
Arguably, your purchased internet will be of better quality and have better support because of competition than if they remained a local monopoly (which is the case is a vast majority of regions). Especially if the service eventually becomes revenue positive and pays for itself, possibly providing non-tax revenue into the municipal general fund and lowering your tax load.
blakejustblake 5y ago
And if by subsidizing other people's internet they have better access to higher quality connections then it will be a net benefit for your community, which will in turn improve your life while interacting with and in that community.
8note 5y ago
Is that a change from the status quo? I'm pretty sure I'm paying to subsidize your private internet already
rodgerd 5y ago
"taxes are what we pay for civilized society" - Compañia General de Tabacos de Filipinas vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, 275 U.S. 87, 100 (1927)
iptrans 5y ago
Not if the municipality builds an open access network. Then any ISP can use the network and you pay the ISP of your choice.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

fabbari 5y ago

You can get you own armed guards - but you will still subsidize other people's police force. You pay taxes to provide a minimum service to all of the community, you can then take advantage of it or not - that's your prerogative. I pay for school taxes, but I don't have kids - should I get my money back?

Spivak 5y ago
This line of reasoning could be used to justify government expansion into literally any market. Given that most people don’t want government providing services in every market there has to be some other factor that limits the scope which is where the disagreement lives. Government mediating equal access to last mile lines and funding their construction — probably good to everyone. Government running consumer ISPs end-to-end is a tougher sell.
- 8note 5y ago
  Having a government provided baseline for all markets sounds great. Private business should justify itself by doing better and ensuring nobody wants the public version -- which also ensures the public version stays cheap. [Expensive per unit, but inexpensive overall]
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
nickff 5y ago
I understand you're trying to use examples that seem clear to you, but you're begging more questions than you answer: >" You can get you own armed guards - but you will still subsidize other people's police force." Why? This is an especially open question in areas with large police forces and high crime rates, or histories of police abuse of power. >"You pay taxes to provide a minimum service to all of the community, you can then take advantage of it or not - that's your prerogative." Again, why? What's 'a minimum service to the community'? Do you mean public goods, or services that have positive externalities, or things that help the poor? >"I pay for school taxes, but I don't have kids - should I get my money back?" Maybe! Depends on your beliefs surrounding political authority and ethics. Perhaps you might do better to point to your ethical framework, and highlight what it means with respect to municipal fiber.
- FactolSarin 5y ago
  Public Schools aren't just benefiting people with kids. It benefits society (a society you and OP are members of). Getting rid of schools is like getting rid of the military. Maybe you feel like you don't personally benefit from it and you want your taxes back, but that's not how it works. Not should it. An ideal government functions to help the people not individual persons.
  - nickff 5y ago
    >”Getting rid of schools is like getting rid of the military.” I see national defense and public schools as very different. Defense is a non-excludable, fixed cost, so-called ‘public good’. Primary and secondary education are not public goods, though they may be long-term investments (which defense is not). I am not saying that I ‘like’ or ‘dislike’ either, but they’re very different. >”An ideal government functions to help the people not individual persons.” I’ve never heard this argument before, could you please elaborate, or point to a good source for your “ideal government” ethical framework?
    - 8note 5y ago
      Defense seems very excludable. If I've got a gun, I'm doing the defense by myself. No need to pay for aircraft carriers in the middle of the unpopulated ocean

asdff 5y ago

That's how taxes work. I don't have any children, but my taxes fund schools. My house isn't burning down, but my taxes fund fire departments. I don't commute with a car, but my taxes fund bridges and highways. There is a net economic benefit to pulling your fellow person out of the gutter when it comes to some things. We are all richer because we have an educated populace, cities that don't burn down, highways to move people and goods. To put it into HN friendly terms, all of these benefits increase the quality of our labor, which increases our valuation in the eyes of global investors and makes them want to invest in American companies and keep us paid and employed. And who knows, some day you might need help out of the gutter, too, or a fire put out.

patrickthebold 5y ago
I realize this isn't your point, but one of my pet peeves is about 'your taxes paying for other people's kids'. Everyone gets to go to school for free, your taxes should be thought of as paying off your own education. It seems silly to me that someone goes through public schools, then doesn't have kids and starts complaining that schools don't benefit them and they shouldn't have to pay.
- SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
  >Everyone gets to go to school for free, your taxes should be thought of as paying off your own education. Are you sure you want to make the argument that a public school education cost you many many times what a private school education would paid over a lifetime of taxes? Of course not. There is nothing wrong with the argument you are paying for other people's kids. You are. It's a net good for society. I personal don't want roving gangs of uneducated youths who today are confined to schools all day, this is a big win for everyone. The day-prison system works well unless you're really interested in high quality education. Deal with it, don't make weird excuses and pretend scenarios (like mine above).
- edmundsauto 5y ago
  > Everyone gets to go to school for free, your taxes should be thought of as paying off your own education. What makes you think this is the correct perspective? Many Americans had parents who were educated abroad or not at all (if I'm paying for my education, what did my parents pay for?). Further, my education was less expensive than my education-focused-taxes are now - if I really were paying just for myself, shouldn't it be an inflation adjusted amount? Instead, I pay what it costs to educate a kid today.

r00fus 5y ago

Arguably, your purchased internet will be of better quality and have better support because of competition than if they remained a local monopoly (which is the case is a vast majority of regions). Especially if the service eventually becomes revenue positive and pays for itself, possibly providing non-tax revenue into the municipal general fund and lowering your tax load.

blakejustblake 5y ago

And if by subsidizing other people's internet they have better access to higher quality connections then it will be a net benefit for your community, which will in turn improve your life while interacting with and in that community.

8note 5y ago

Is that a change from the status quo? I'm pretty sure I'm paying to subsidize your private internet already

rodgerd 5y ago

"taxes are what we pay for civilized society" - Compañia General de Tabacos de Filipinas vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, 275 U.S. 87, 100 (1927)

iptrans 5y ago

Not if the municipality builds an open access network. Then any ISP can use the network and you pay the ISP of your choice.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]