Seeing that the satellite technology needed to maintain the internet isn't free, should some kind of internet tax be introduced to fund it?
Should we raise internet taxes?
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
We already pay in taxation. The aims of the CDN govt is to provide nationwide broad to all for free.
I'd voted for the first two above. By charging a fee to internet service providers, which would be earmarked towards internet satellite technolgy, we'd ensure that those who benefit most from it would be the ones paying. Obviously these providers woudl pass that cost on to us, the consumers, as part of their new overhead costs.
As for the second, clearly space agencies consume many natural resources in the development of this technology. By raising prices for these resources, we're thus making it more expensive for a space egency to operate, meaning that we'd then have to raise these internet fees even more to pay for it, which of course would be passed on to us again.
I think though that such a system would be fair, as it would ensure that we, the consumers of internet services, would receive the full bront of the costs, both in terms of maintaining these satellites, and in terms of the environmental impact, by having the costs passed down to us as part of the new overhead operating costs of internet service providers.
As for those who do not use the internet, but still benefit indirectly from it, they'd still be paying indirectly since celarly businesses and government agencies that use internet services would have to pay these extra costs too, meaning that all taxpayers would be paying to the degree that each benefits from the internet. I think this would be fair.
As for general tax dollars going towards it, I'd be totally opposed since this would mean that those who do not use the internet would essentially be unfaily subsidizing our use of it. Just as I don't want to be subsidizing another pseron's drive to work, I can certainly understand why other taxpayers would not want to subsidize my internet use. I ought to pay for it myself, and I think the solution above would achieve this objective in a fair manner.
Any comments?
Right. Unless the computer is provided for free too, then the broad isn't too useful now is it? And it's not even a question of whether I can afford a computer. Let's say I can afford one but am just not interested in using the internet, why should my taxes pay to subsidize another person's internet use?
As we all know here at Canadian Content, we all use the internet to varying degrees or we wouldn't be on this site. Is it not fair that we at CanCon should pay more than those who do not use the internet? Why are you asking others to subsidize your internet use?
As for the second, clearly space agencies consume many natural resources in the development of this technology. By raising prices for these resources, we're thus making it more expensive for a space egency to operate, meaning that we'd then have to raise these internet fees even more to pay for it, which of course would be passed on to us again.
I think though that such a system would be fair, as it would ensure that we, the consumers of internet services, would receive the full bront of the costs, both in terms of maintaining these satellites, and in terms of the environmental impact, by having the costs passed down to us as part of the new overhead operating costs of internet service providers.
As for those who do not use the internet, but still benefit indirectly from it, they'd still be paying indirectly since celarly businesses and government agencies that use internet services would have to pay these extra costs too, meaning that all taxpayers would be paying to the degree that each benefits from the internet. I think this would be fair.
As for general tax dollars going towards it, I'd be totally opposed since this would mean that those who do not use the internet would essentially be unfaily subsidizing our use of it. Just as I don't want to be subsidizing another pseron's drive to work, I can certainly understand why other taxpayers would not want to subsidize my internet use. I ought to pay for it myself, and I think the solution above would achieve this objective in a fair manner.
Any comments?
Right. Unless the computer is provided for free too, then the broad isn't too useful now is it? And it's not even a question of whether I can afford a computer. Let's say I can afford one but am just not interested in using the internet, why should my taxes pay to subsidize another person's internet use?
As we all know here at Canadian Content, we all use the internet to varying degrees or we wouldn't be on this site. Is it not fair that we at CanCon should pay more than those who do not use the internet? Why are you asking others to subsidize your internet use?
As for those who can't afford the internet but who need access for various reasons, the local public library provides free use anyway, along with job search centres. So there is access even for the poor if they need it. And honestly, I have no qualms about my taxes going towards paying for another peron's job search. But why should others be paying for my personal use of the internet for entertainment? I don't get it?
Do you really ant to subsidize my use of the internet as a passtime?
Do you really ant to subsidize my use of the internet as a passtime?
Well, OK, if you mean that the government ought to give a free laptop to everyone, I'd have to seriously think about this. However, unless the laptop is free, then those who don't own a computer should not have to pay so directly into the maintenance of our internet satellite technology.
The same goes for TV satellite technology by the way. Unless TVs will be given out for free, then no taxes should go towards maintaining TV satellite technology; instead, Cable providers ought to pay and pass it down to their cutomers. Same with telephone satellite tech too. Unless phones are free, those with a telephone ought to pay more obviously.
Information is a right the same way a library and education are rights. If you did your homework you'd know you can't access porn or gaming on the free net.
Isn't that what user-fees that are paid to the ISP do? That is why there are several tiers, cheaper for the ligyt user and highest to those who want/need the faster connections.
What ever happened to that proposal to have it carried by the power companies? (same method Telus uses over copper wires)
What ever happened to that proposal to have it carried by the power companies? (same method Telus uses over copper wires)
That would mean going into competition with existing providers, why not leave irt alone (as far as bandwidth supply is concerned) and just make user fees tax deductible? LOL not that I have any hopes of that being the case, we seem to be moving into regulated territory and that means they control content, such as in North Korea.