Live data from Hacker News

If AI replaces workers, should it also pay taxes?

english.elpais.com

221–230 of 1001 posts

Re: If AI replaces workers, should it also pay taxes?

#221
It feels really alien to discuss this in terms of "taxing AI", like an economic abstraction completely breaking down. Ultimately when you take automation to its logical conclusion we have people with needs and we have machines and automation capable of meeting those needs with minimal human labor.

No matter how you try to resolve this economically, it should hold that if something can be produced with minimal human labor, it shouldn't require substantial human labor to buy (in "reasonable" quantities, however you want to define and enforce that).

Without understanding the "end game" of automation (decades+ from now) it feels like we're just sleepwalking into an absurd reality where a few trillionaires own the world's fully automated food supply chain, but buying food somehow requires just as much labor as it does today.

Re: If AI replaces workers, should it also pay taxes?

#222
post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I need to think about this more, but the first thing that comes to my mind is not that this looks like “taxing the tool”, but that this can (ought to?) be similar to an alcohol or a fuel duty. Nobody calls alcohol duty “micromanagement”. For products like petrol, it’s widely known that from money paid for a liter when it’s sold, say, in the UK, more money stays in the UK’s government pocket via a complex web of taxes…

> Nobody calls alcohol duty “micromanagement”. They don't, but it really is! There's different rates for different specific gravity and different processes. Re: petrol, I note that the UK government is trying to replace this as part of the EV transition with a milage tax, which is proving controversial and fiddly. Energy tax is a hugely fraught political issue. The "poster child" for cheap energy is a little old lady…

> I think I'd favor a "personal allowance" model similar to income tax, where you get the first X units of energy tax free and then have to pay VAT, carbon taxes etc. on the rest of it.

I can see why this is tempting, but I think there's a better way to legislate with this, especially with that poster child.

I'm a landlord of a flat. I used to live in it before I left the UK. The EPC rating is D, so despite the double glazing it's still pretty cold in winter. I am now living in a fancy new-build in Berlin which, despite being 3 times the size of that flat, can be kept warm for 10 months of the year just by body heat and waste energy from the white goods — even with higher electricity costs in Germany, it costs less to be comfortable in this building in a T-shirt all year round (even while snow is falling outside), than to be wearing fleeces and sleeping with hot water bottles and still not be completely comfortable in that flat in the UK.

A few years back there was a proposal for legislation that would increase the requirements for all rental property to be at minimum C-rated by 2030, as I understand it this was dropped and the current minimum is F or something ridiculous like that. My agent's advice is to not do anything until the legislation is actually sorted, even though I'm happy to spend whatever to upgrade the place, because until you know what the legislation demands there's always a risk of doing the wrong work beforehand, having to rip it out and put something else in.

IMO, government should push for this kind of boost, as it has with other energy-saving and insulation-boosting measures.

My first rental after graduation was a Welsh solid stone wall construction; like the example you gave, I couldn't keep warm there even with the electric bar heater a meter from me.

Re: If AI replaces workers, should it also pay taxes?

#223
post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taxing wealth is much harder on a practical and algorithmic level than taxing income. But either way, taxing the tool is micromanaging the problem, and some powerful people cynically promote that because they can aim the details away from themselves.

> Taxing wealth is much harder on a practical and algorithmic level than taxing income. I find this argument somewhat unconvincing. Where is most of the wealth? In hard assets, such as real estate and financial assets, such as stocks and bonds. The former are very difficult to hide, for obvious reasons. As for the latter, the ownership of every single share is recorded in large databases (e.g. DTCC, Clearstream and E…

But financial assets do not need physical space, so they can be tied to smaller countries which will be very happy to tax them at a lower rate so they can "steal them" from the original country where they were generated.

Re: If AI replaces workers, should it also pay taxes?

#224
post #219
post #184

No, not the AI. Just the owner of means of production like AI. The fact that capital owners successfully avoid contributing to the financing of our states and social systems is, in my view, one of the fundamental problems of our time.

You can’t ask someone to pay taxes if they have a bigger, cheaper army.

I wouldn't discount the collective power and ingenuity of a few billion oppressed people.

Re: If AI replaces workers, should it also pay taxes?

#225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a capitalist system, capital makes the rules for everyone. This is why capital earns more than labour. System working as intended.

Sorta depends on where one draws the line, but the line you are drawing, suggest there should be no government, so "system not working as intended"

I don't think they were thinking of "no government", rather something like "government working in support of capital" (see 2008 financial crisis bank bail-outs; enforcing private ownership and protecting accumulated wealth).

Re: If AI replaces workers, should it also pay taxes?

#226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a capitalist system, capital makes the rules for everyone. This is why capital earns more than labour. System working as intended.

Sorta depends on where one draws the line, but the line you are drawing, suggest there should be no government, so "system not working as intended"

There's always a government. There isn't always an electable, accountable, removable government. Run - no matter how partially - for the common good.

Re: If AI replaces workers, should it also pay taxes?

#228
post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The latter makes sense. We also don't let steam engines and carts pay taxes just because they 'replace' (=displace) human labor. Don't tax tools or income, tax the accumulation of it: wealth.

Taxing wealth is much harder on a practical and algorithmic level than taxing income. But either way, taxing the tool is micromanaging the problem, and some powerful people cynically promote that because they can aim the details away from themselves.

Switzerland taxes wealth instead of capital gains (except for professional investors).

In some ways taxing wealth is quite simple, because wealth is already meticulously recorded via contracts and owners go out of their way to estimate the magnitude of their wealth for example to borrow money or for other financial and economic obligations.

Another approach would be to tax capital gains at the same rate as income and introduce additional top brackets. I have a hard time to find a good faith reason for capital gains to be taxed less than labor.

Re: If AI replaces workers, should it also pay taxes?

#229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Taxing wealth is much harder on a practical and algorithmic level than taxing income. I find this argument somewhat unconvincing. Where is most of the wealth? In hard assets, such as real estate and financial assets, such as stocks and bonds. The former are very difficult to hide, for obvious reasons. As for the latter, the ownership of every single share is recorded in large databases (e.g. DTCC, Clearstream and E…

But financial assets do not need physical space, so they can be tied to smaller countries which will be very happy to tax them at a lower rate so they can "steal them" from the original country where they were generated.

You can still tax based on the persons residence or citizenship. In the end someone can be attributed to wealth, and if they want to stay where they are physically, they should also tax like it.

Re: If AI replaces workers, should it also pay taxes?

#230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a capitalist system, capital makes the rules for everyone. This is why capital earns more than labour. System working as intended.

Sorta depends on where one draws the line, but the line you are drawing, suggest there should be no government, so "system not working as intended"

It's a government of capitalists by capitalists for capitalists.
Post reply on HN