3 ms·

Well in that case you're taxing people who don't use it to pay for it. If it can't get enough people wanting to use it at what it costs to run, I can see that a

Well in that case you're taxing people who don't use it to pay for it. If it can't get enough people wanting to use it at what it costs to run, I can see that as a good argument it shouldn't exist. (Though obviously I would take that data with a pile of salt.)

Retric 2y ago
By that argument we should tax private broadband providers to claw back past subsidies with interest and eliminate current ones. Instead it’s just an argument that subsidies for private businesses is good but public works is bad, which seems silly.
phone8675309 2y ago
> Well in that case you're taxing people who don't use it to pay for it. Bullshit. There are many ways such a thing could be funded without being on the backs of individual taxpayers.
- germinator 2y ago
  I'm guessing you're talking about taxing businesses or products / services instead. That strikes me as a weird argument. Ultimately, all taxes are taxes on the labor of individual humans. "Corporate money" mostly isn't: if you tax it, you either pay as an employee or as a consumer. There are some populist arguments about executive compensation, but if nothing else, executives are still "individual taxpayers", right?
  - phone8675309 2y ago
    Businesses have to pay for a lot of things that consumers don't - business licenses, permits, etc. Any of those things can be a source of revenue to make up the shortfall. By that logic should corporations get a tax break because a corporation isn't going to be using the public library given that it's a legal fiction? Come on.
    - bartonfink 2y ago
      > you either pay as an employee or as a consumer. I think you stopped reading, or at least comprehending what you were reading, early.
goodcanadian 2y ago
Well in that case you're taxing people who don't use it to pay for it. The same can be said of virtually any government service.
- nickff 2y ago
  Not all government services are redistributive, take the USPTO for example, or maybe passports.
bryanlarsen 2y ago
Do you benefit if you don't use a government service but your neighbors do? You benefit if the local businesses have reasonably priced Internet, rather than paying hundreds of dollars a month for "commercial" services from incumbents. You benefit if your neighbor's kids have access to better education because those kids are the ones that are going to provide essential services to you as you age. And so on. Everybody benefits from infrastructure even if they don't use it directly. P.S. Yes in this case your benefits aren't large, but (1) your costs are small because internet is a paid service so the vast majority of the costs are covered by those who directly benefit and (2) infrastructure is cumulative -- the benefit of public infrastructure is greater than the sum of the parts.
- notdonspaulding 2y ago
  > Everybody benefits from infrastructure even if they don't use it directly. ...therefore, by definition, any infrastructure project is to be considered "worth it" and should be welcomed by everyone in the community. To be against government rollout of infrastructure is to be against everybody's best interest, right? I'm not against government-provided services across-the-board. But apologists for infrastructure spending often seem to make this argument as if it's the last point to be made. The great thing about a private company "overcharging" or "underserving" a community is that citizens aren't forced to be in a relationship with that company for their services. That's not the case for infrastructure spending by the local government. It's much harder to vote with your feet than to vote with your wallet. The fine line to walk with government spending is to find a way to incentivize competition in the local marketplace, without destroying it in the process. It's not an easy problem to solve.
  - semi 2y ago
    > The great thing about a private company "overcharging" or "underserving" a community is that citizens aren't forced to be in a relationship with that company for their services. But that is rarely true for any privatized infrastructure alternative. There is often direct financial relations through taxation anyways, either tax breaks for the company or outright having the municipality foot the bill(see most stadiums) Then there is the potential resource usage itself - e.g how much of the land in that city is now dedicate to toll roads that could be free, or in the internet infra case it's often exclusive rights to the poles all of the lines are ran on.
technofiend 2y ago
>Well in that case you're taxing people who don't use it to pay for it. This is what I jokingly call the Libertarian's Lament: anything I don't use is a waste of money. >If it can't get enough people wanting to use it at what it costs to run, I can see that as a good argument it shouldn't exist Government services are not meant to run at a profit, which I think is the crux of the argument from private service providers: "We can't compete with someone who doesn't run for a profit, because it leaves us no room for a margin." Which is true. Then again I'm glad no one is trying to supply me water or sewer services at a profit and personally think privatizing electric service was a mistake. So from my perspective it's preferable to have a utility ISP.

Retric 2y ago

By that argument we should tax private broadband providers to claw back past subsidies with interest and eliminate current ones. Instead it’s just an argument that subsidies for private businesses is good but public works is bad, which seems silly.

phone8675309 2y ago

> Well in that case you're taxing people who don't use it to pay for it. Bullshit. There are many ways such a thing could be funded without being on the backs of individual taxpayers.

germinator 2y ago
I'm guessing you're talking about taxing businesses or products / services instead. That strikes me as a weird argument. Ultimately, all taxes are taxes on the labor of individual humans. "Corporate money" mostly isn't: if you tax it, you either pay as an employee or as a consumer. There are some populist arguments about executive compensation, but if nothing else, executives are still "individual taxpayers", right?
- phone8675309 2y ago
  Businesses have to pay for a lot of things that consumers don't - business licenses, permits, etc. Any of those things can be a source of revenue to make up the shortfall. By that logic should corporations get a tax break because a corporation isn't going to be using the public library given that it's a legal fiction? Come on.
  - bartonfink 2y ago
    > you either pay as an employee or as a consumer. I think you stopped reading, or at least comprehending what you were reading, early.

goodcanadian 2y ago

Well in that case you're taxing people who don't use it to pay for it. The same can be said of virtually any government service.

nickff 2y ago
Not all government services are redistributive, take the USPTO for example, or maybe passports.

bryanlarsen 2y ago

Do you benefit if you don't use a government service but your neighbors do? You benefit if the local businesses have reasonably priced Internet, rather than paying hundreds of dollars a month for "commercial" services from incumbents. You benefit if your neighbor's kids have access to better education because those kids are the ones that are going to provide essential services to you as you age. And so on. Everybody benefits from infrastructure even if they don't use it directly. P.S. Yes in this case your benefits aren't large, but (1) your costs are small because internet is a paid service so the vast majority of the costs are covered by those who directly benefit and (2) infrastructure is cumulative -- the benefit of public infrastructure is greater than the sum of the parts.

notdonspaulding 2y ago
> Everybody benefits from infrastructure even if they don't use it directly. ...therefore, by definition, any infrastructure project is to be considered "worth it" and should be welcomed by everyone in the community. To be against government rollout of infrastructure is to be against everybody's best interest, right? I'm not against government-provided services across-the-board. But apologists for infrastructure spending often seem to make this argument as if it's the last point to be made. The great thing about a private company "overcharging" or "underserving" a community is that citizens aren't forced to be in a relationship with that company for their services. That's not the case for infrastructure spending by the local government. It's much harder to vote with your feet than to vote with your wallet. The fine line to walk with government spending is to find a way to incentivize competition in the local marketplace, without destroying it in the process. It's not an easy problem to solve.
- semi 2y ago
  > The great thing about a private company "overcharging" or "underserving" a community is that citizens aren't forced to be in a relationship with that company for their services. But that is rarely true for any privatized infrastructure alternative. There is often direct financial relations through taxation anyways, either tax breaks for the company or outright having the municipality foot the bill(see most stadiums) Then there is the potential resource usage itself - e.g how much of the land in that city is now dedicate to toll roads that could be free, or in the internet infra case it's often exclusive rights to the poles all of the lines are ran on.

technofiend 2y ago

>Well in that case you're taxing people who don't use it to pay for it. This is what I jokingly call the Libertarian's Lament: anything I don't use is a waste of money. >If it can't get enough people wanting to use it at what it costs to run, I can see that as a good argument it shouldn't exist Government services are not meant to run at a profit, which I think is the crux of the argument from private service providers: "We can't compete with someone who doesn't run for a profit, because it leaves us no room for a margin." Which is true. Then again I'm glad no one is trying to supply me water or sewer services at a profit and personally think privatizing electric service was a mistake. So from my perspective it's preferable to have a utility ISP.