4 ms·

> in the US even those who don't use GPS technology are subject to taxes There is no way you don't benefit from the GPS system if you are a US Citizen. It's a

by olefoo 12y ago

> in the US even those who don't use GPS technology are subject to taxes There is no way you don't benefit from the GPS system if you are a US Citizen. It's an infrastructure technology that means your roads are safer, your package delivery cheaper, your maps more accurate, your emergency services more effective; and a million other subtle benefits that you would have difficulty quantifying. As such it makes sense to fund it from general treasury; and to charge taxes on everyone in proportion to the benefit they get from society ( represented as income, including capital gains ). Since public infrastructure benefits the whole of society. That's the nature of public infrastructure. And the decadent libertarian fantasy that someone should be able to opt out of taxes because of their rugged individualism is just that; a fantasy. There is no such thing as individual success in an advanced technological society and anyone who tells you there is is a parasite on that society.

wutbrodo 12y ago
> There is no way you don't benefit from the GPS system if you are a US Citizen.It's an infrastructure technology that means your roads are safer, your package delivery cheaper, your maps more accurate, your emergency services more effective; and a million other subtle benefits that you would have difficulty quantifying. > As such it makes sense to fund it from general treasury; and to charge taxes on everyone in proportion to the benefit they get from society ( represented as income, including capital gains ). Since public infrastructure benefits the whole of society. Yea, duh. If you actually read my comment, there's no disagreement with this: in fact I tend to be more inclined to public funding of things like GPS and transit than most people (whether on HN or in the population at large). I was disagreeing with the contention that paying for something by taxes is the same as charging for it. The way the incentives and the burden falls is NOT the same for those two approaches. You're talking about whether or not this SHOULD be done: an entirely different discussion from the one being had on this subthread.

by olefoo 12y ago

wutbrodo 12y ago

> There is no way you don't benefit from the GPS system if you are a US Citizen.It's an infrastructure technology that means your roads are safer, your package delivery cheaper, your maps more accurate, your emergency services more effective; and a million other subtle benefits that you would have difficulty quantifying. > As such it makes sense to fund it from general treasury; and to charge taxes on everyone in proportion to the benefit they get from society ( represented as income, including capital gains ). Since public infrastructure benefits the whole of society. Yea, duh. If you actually read my comment, there's no disagreement with this: in fact I tend to be more inclined to public funding of things like GPS and transit than most people (whether on HN or in the population at large). I was disagreeing with the contention that paying for something by taxes is the same as charging for it. The way the incentives and the burden falls is NOT the same for those two approaches. You're talking about whether or not this SHOULD be done: an entirely different discussion from the one being had on this subthread.