So, the article is suggesting that everyone who uses GPS technology should be paying a fee.. to the government? Isn't that what we already call 'taxes'?
The government certainly could put a specific tax on sale or use of GPS technology.
But what the OP seems to actually be suggesting is that tax loopholes are closed and high tech corporations are taxed more in general, yeah:
> That’s why a company like Apple should be using a substantial portion of its super-profits to support government investment in the next generation of innovation. Instead, the company runs an entire division devoted to finding ways to avoid taxation.
That's just one of the topics the interview talks about, I encourage readers to skim the others too, not assume the whole article is about taxation, it's not.
In the case of the technologies mentioned, government made the explicit choice to publicly fund those things through taxes, with the assumption that the value to the economy from unfettered usage would be higher than the cost. That doesn't mean that taxes are equivalent to pay-per-use though.
1) I intentionally broadened my point to all the technologies mentioned in the article as opposed to just GPS, which was the example you used in your comment. I figured that the broader point was the more interested and more relevant one than that of GPS alone.
2) Less importantly: GPS has characteristics like that which makes it easier to give away for free. However, something having a high fixed cost and then lower on-going cost doesn't mean "there's no point" in charging: it helps defray the initial cost. There are many things that fall into this category (like drug research).
It is a very good cost-to-utility ratio for the US.
These are very very different points, and the first one is not really technically possible since GPS is just an ultra precise timestamp broadcast, there is no two way data.
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.
> 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.