3 ms·

I don't see any reason why this isn't a good idea. Getting internet access to more people can only serve to advancing America as a whole, I would like to think.

by rlt3 14y ago

I don't see any reason why this isn't a good idea. Getting internet access to more people can only serve to advancing America as a whole, I would like to think. Any reason why we should be against this?

greenyoda 14y ago
First of all, it's a regressive tax. If you charge every household the same amount, poor people will pay a much larger fraction of their yearly income for this tax than rich people will. You'll end up with a large portion of the subsidy coming from households who might need to spend the extra money on necessities. If we as a country believe that it's really important to subsidize the expansion of internet access, then the Congress should pass a law to do so, and fund it out of the national budget. In a democratic country, I think this is a much better way of doing things than allowing the FCC, a bunch of un-elected bureaucrats, to impose a tax (which they'll call a "fee") by administrative fiat. Also, as a democratic country, we should be able to debate, via our elected representatives, whether it would be wiser to spend all this money elsewhere. For example, does it help the country more to subsidize broadband internet access or to fund schools, or healthcare for the poor, or AIDS research? I don't know the answer to this question, but whoever decides ought to be required to make a good case for it and put their political reputation on the line.
- 001sky 14y ago
  Agree, the argument agains is structural. you are just building more measurement/collection/distribution red tape. why not just raise the income tax? The counter-argument is "targeting", ie make the users pay for it. But we don't let this be an out for public school funding (ie, you cant opt out if you don't have kids). And, arguably, the internet covers every educataion institution and then some. So, targeting to "internet users" is a red herring. This is an inside the beltway chess game, most likely.
- rlt3 14y ago
  A great explanation. Thanks for sharing.

by rlt3 14y ago

greenyoda 14y ago

First of all, it's a regressive tax. If you charge every household the same amount, poor people will pay a much larger fraction of their yearly income for this tax than rich people will. You'll end up with a large portion of the subsidy coming from households who might need to spend the extra money on necessities. If we as a country believe that it's really important to subsidize the expansion of internet access, then the Congress should pass a law to do so, and fund it out of the national budget. In a democratic country, I think this is a much better way of doing things than allowing the FCC, a bunch of un-elected bureaucrats, to impose a tax (which they'll call a "fee") by administrative fiat. Also, as a democratic country, we should be able to debate, via our elected representatives, whether it would be wiser to spend all this money elsewhere. For example, does it help the country more to subsidize broadband internet access or to fund schools, or healthcare for the poor, or AIDS research? I don't know the answer to this question, but whoever decides ought to be required to make a good case for it and put their political reputation on the line.

001sky 14y ago
Agree, the argument agains is structural. you are just building more measurement/collection/distribution red tape. why not just raise the income tax? The counter-argument is "targeting", ie make the users pay for it. But we don't let this be an out for public school funding (ie, you cant opt out if you don't have kids). And, arguably, the internet covers every educataion institution and then some. So, targeting to "internet users" is a red herring. This is an inside the beltway chess game, most likely.
rlt3 14y ago
A great explanation. Thanks for sharing.