| other non-necessities of life Street Lights
Cars, roads, signals, road signs
Airports
What do these have in common? Your government decided that they were "necessary" enough to justify an investment in infrastructure to bring the citizens these "necessities" to improve the quality of life.
What's the difference with these and broadband access? Perception. At the time the first roads for automobiles were built, I'm sure the same hackney-eyed arguments were used to try and keep them from being built, along with airports, cable right of ways, etc.
Time changes these perceptions. |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by garagerock:
Street Lights
Cars, roads, signals, road signs
Airports
What do these have in common? Your government decided that they were "necessary" enough to justify an investment in infrastructure to bring the citizens these "necessities" to improve the quality of life.
The main difference here is that I am not being forced to pay for street lights, road, signals and road signs. The gas taxes and other motor vehicle fees which I pay based on the type of vehicle I own (trucks pay more than cars, etc.) and the amount of miles I drive (not a direct per-mileage tax, if I drive more, I buy more gas and pay more in gas taxes) pay them. If I didn't want to pay these taxes, then I could choose to not have a car and not pay them. As for airports, these are almost always paid for in the form of taxes and fees on airlines and passengers. If I don't fly, then I don't pay these taxes. The general tax base is not being used to finance these things.
Perhaps the people who do want government provided broadband should voluntarily choose to pay extra money out of their pockets to pay for it. Ideally, I think those people who want broadband should band together themselves and take care of the problem on their own. Let the government get out of their way in the process as well.
We need to keep in mind that some people aren't interested in broadband, and they should not have their taxes raised to pay for it. You could also say that some people aren't interested in driving or flying and they do neither. As a result, none of their money is paid into the specific forms of taxation which finance these means of transportation.
And another thing. State and local governments all over the USA are having major budget problems because they spend more than they take in taxes. What kind of irresponsible city government proposes these kinds of extraneous expenditures in a time like this (or any other time)? This project will be like all other government projects, under-estimated and over-financed. Taxes will have to increase to cover the costs, that is a guarantee.
--
DRM == Doesn't Read MP3s |
|
| quote:
The main difference here is that I am not being forced to pay for street lights, road, signals and road signs.
Somebody was at sometime back in history. Your turn in the barrel to fund this technological leap forward.
quote:
As for airports, these are almost always paid for in the form of taxes and fees on airlines and passengers
I wish that were true. The airport here was paid for in bonds, tax money, and low interest loans subsidized by the local gov't.
quote:
You could also say that some people aren't interested in driving or flying and they do neither
quote:
If I didn't want to pay these taxes, then I could choose to not have a car and not pay them.
Yeah, right. I wish. I'd go fetch some quick facts, but the notion there are enough people who aren't driving to support your argument is, plainly, pretty laughable. The U.S. drives more than anyone. Don't want to drive? Do you live within the bus route from work? Plan on walking in sub-zero weather?? Commuter train?
Any public transportation you take is going to be funded by tax dollars-better not use what you're already paying for. |
|
kmoss
join:2002-09-14
Lisle, IL | I don't have children, but a nice hefty portion of my property tax goes toward my local school district. You think my neighbors with children should "band together" and "voluntarily pay extra" out of their own pocket to fund the school districts? Get real!! Broadband availability is good for everyone in America. It's a technology that will provide jobs to the youth of this country for decades. The internet is an interactive tool, unlike cable tv (which can be mind-numbing). Depriving children of broadband access or internet access in general puts them at a disadvantage against kids who know the internet and it's fundamental structure. Sure, some property taxes I pay go toward my school district - but I'm glad that my money is going toward those schools getting the funding necessary to remain competitive and providing the best education level it can. pnh102 is just plain old cheap. |
|
 BK3
join:2001-04-10
Geneva, IL | reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:
said by garagerock:
Street Lights
Perhaps the people who do want government provided broadband should voluntarily choose to pay extra money out of their pockets to pay for it. Ideally, I think those people who want broadband should band together themselves and take care of the problem on their own. Let the government get out of their way in the process as well.
I live in Geneva, one of the cities that is doing this. The cities plan on paying for this by issuing bonds, and the expectation is that these bond would be paid for in about 3 years through subscription fees. It is not taxpayer based, but the initial investment is to be paid for by bonds and paid off through subscriptions.
--
Intelligent discussion is invited and encouraged. |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| reply to kmoss
said by kmoss:
I don't have children, but a nice hefty portion of my property tax goes toward my local school district. You think my neighbors with children should "band together" and "voluntarily pay extra" out of their own pocket to fund the school districts?
Absolutely. If you want to have kids, pay for them yourself. As a person with no kids, I am tired of paying higher and higher property taxes each year for schools I don't use. But realistically, there should be good schools available to all kids if the parents want to send them there. Should broadband deployment trump good education? If you keep taxes constant and then use tax money to pay for broadband, you will have to cut money from something else. You want your school system, police, fire, EMTs and other services to suffer? Then start wasting money on broadband and other boondoggles and it will happen.
said by kmoss:
pnh102 is just plain old cheap.
Yes I am. If you want everyone to have broadband, you can open your wallet, checkbook or whatever and give as much money to the effort to wire up all these places. I don't want to pay for it, so don't ask me to pay for it.
--
DRM == Doesn't Read MP3s
[text was edited by author 2003-01-24 13:53:04] |
|
|
|
kmoss
join:2002-09-14
Lisle, IL | Well I don't want to pay taxes to support the fire department, police department, and city upkeep so you can enjoy a high standard of living - so don't ask ME to pay for YOUR police force.
Cheap bastard. |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by kmoss:
Well I don't want to pay taxes to support the fire department, police department, and city upkeep so you can enjoy a high standard of living - so don't ask ME to pay for YOUR police force.
Well than what do you want? Good schools, police, fire protection and city upkeep? Or high speed broadband, high crime, raging fires, and schools full of idiots? Its quite shortsighted of you to lump broadband into the same class/priority of services that you would put police, fire and education.
--
DRM == Doesn't Read MP3s |
|
