4 ms·
> economically harmful usage-based billing and for that matter eliminate all the overhead of billing, marketing, collections, denying access to non-subscribers
by snitko 12y ago
> economically harmful usage-based billing and for that matter eliminate all the overhead of billing, marketing, collections, denying access to non-subscribers
So are you saying that feeding the whole IRS is LESS expensive than having an automated billing system that could track who is subscribed and who can enter a certain road? Because if it's not more effective, then, by the same token, why don't we also fund air travel with taxation? Too expensive to check tickets and deny access to free riders. It's better to just let everyone fly for free. Hell, you can say anything is more effective when funded by taxation. But that doesn't make it true. I don't understand why do I have to subsidize someone who uses roads everyday, while I use it once a week, for example. It's like as if I had to pay the same price for 1 airline ticket as the other person paid for 10. And while it may be a burden for a company to deploy a billing system, with government the burden is on the consumer: I have to fill all those tax forms and make sure everything is correct (or pay an accountant) - talking about some economically harmful activity, I don't like it when someone conscripts me to be a part-time accountant.
Your claims that government provided services are better because their production is more effective is not proven. Show me the exact mechanism. Show me how is it cheaper for everyone and not just for some? Can you demonstrate that the money spend on running the IRS is actually less than private enterprises would spend on the billing system? If you can't do it, then your words shall be called a speculation, not proof.
- AnthonyMouse 12y ago> So are you saying that feeding the whole IRS is LESS expensive than having an automated billing system that could track who is subscribed and who can enter a certain road? The IRS is not a relevant cost because deciding not to have municipal fiber doesn't cause the IRS to go away. You have to pay for it regardless, unless your proposal is to have no taxes. > Because if it's not more effective, then, by the same token, why don't we also fund air travel with taxation? Because air travel has a significant unit cost. You have to pay for fuel, pilots and flight and ground crews, significantly increased maintenance of aircraft, etc. Moreover, governments have often subsidized the up-front costs of air travel, like airports and planes. > I don't understand why do I have to subsidize someone who uses roads everyday, while I use it once a week, for example. Because you're not subsidizing them, you're asking them to subsidize you. It doesn't require fewer road workers to pave the road in front of your house and the weather doesn't stop creating potholes just because you don't drive on it as much. You're asking for there to be a road in front of your house so that you can drive to the beach or call a cab or get on a bus or have an ambulance come to your house and you want to claim the advantages of having that available, when the availability whatsoever is the primary cost, without paying your share of the cost of that availability.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- specialist 12y agoShow me the exact mechanism. What measure of proof do you require? PS- AnthonyMouse has been exceedingly gracious and patient with you.