Transactions competitively pay for the space they take up in a block. This is true of all transaction types dating back to the Genesis block.

Your argument seems to suggest Transactions should pay for the storage of that block in all nodes, and somehow pay node operators for that storage. Bitcoin users are already inventivized to perform actions to receive Bitcoin for goods and services just as they'd spend. Furthermore, theres no way to identify all node operators that doesnt step into the realm of a central vetted registration.

The virtual byte transition and effective 4:1 discount for signatures of segwit transactions was balanced (albiet poorly) to incentivize use of segwit over p2pkh. As Peter Wuille informs "There is a reason why this discount is justified: in legacy transactions, creating a transaction output is significantly cheaper than spending one. This encourages unspendable dust: outputs that were created at a time when fees were low may become uneconomical to spend (= cost more to spend than they're worth) when fees are high. This is a burden on the entire ecosystem, as full nodes (for now, at least) need to maintain fast access to the set of all unspent outputs."