Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

If AI replaces workers, should it also pay taxes?

english.elpais.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 1001 posts

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

#271

Post by gjsman-1000 »

doener wrote: 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.

The top 1% already pays more than 40% of all federal income tax at a 26.09% effective rate. The bottom 50% has an effective rate of 3.7% and contributes only 3% of all tax revenues.

https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-in...

How about the rich say that 50% of the economy should pay their fair share?

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

#272

Post by veunes »

aetherspawn wrote: post #165

Well for starters, robots shouldn’t be tax deductible because you get a net deduction already from not paying wages, so you should pay maximum tax on their purchase price. (Otherwise you would buy a robot.. tax deduct it, then pay less tax by not paying wages, which basically means humans would be paying tax to offset the cost of corporates buying robot to replace their own jobs which doesn’t seem fair) Plus, they sh…

Yep, if robots really become that cheap and widespread, it could dramatically shift the balance of power in society

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

#274

Post by bruce511 »

harperlee wrote: post #187
doener wrote: 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.

100% agree! I find quite concerning that this point is not immediate in any conversation about AI or robots impacting the number of jobs, and the subsequent conversation about innovating new taxes. AI and robots are capital as any other automation on a factory, and capital gains should be taxed appropriately. This is not a new thing completely separate from the untouchable status quo wrt existing taxes. If it tickles…

I'm not sure I'm following your thought on capital gains tax.

Capital Gain tax occurs when you sell an asset for more than you paid for it.

AI (software) is not an asset, and I'm not sure how you'd sell it. Computers and robots are assets (although they typically depreciate not appreciate.)

Either way capital gains tax is applied to the asset not the productivity of the asset. The productivity in turn is taxed as part of income tax.

Perhaps I have misunderstood your point though?

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

#275

Post by avianlyric »

paxiongmap wrote: post #199
doener wrote: 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.

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

A capitalist system is built on the idea that holders of capital actually deploy that capital, rather than horde it.

If capital holders don’t actually deploy that capital and compete with each other, then you don’t have a capitalist system anymore. You have a feudal system, where asset holders extract resources through rents, rather than capital deployment and risk taking.

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

#276

Post by ivape »

dns_snek wrote: post #224
ivape wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It just took some guns to conquer South America. Flying drones with AI targeting will be too much for regular people. The rich will have access to this service.

Give unto Caesar that which is his, and let God handle the rest. The base case for the inductive proof is alarming, and I can’t see it ending well.

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

#277

Post by 0x696C6961 »

artursapek wrote: post #236
xzjis wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's crazy is that productivity per employee just keeps increasing year after year, but successive neoliberal governments continue to lower corporate taxes. They should be doing the exact opposite! Taxes should be raised as productivity increases! AI is just one more tool that gradually increases productivity, among others.

[flagged]

Then leave

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

#278

Post by lazide »

bruce511 wrote: post #274
harperlee wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100% agree! I find quite concerning that this point is not immediate in any conversation about AI or robots impacting the number of jobs, and the subsequent conversation about innovating new taxes. AI and robots are capital as any other automation on a factory, and capital gains should be taxed appropriately. This is not a new thing completely separate from the untouchable status quo wrt existing taxes. If it tickles…

I'm not sure I'm following your thought on capital gains tax. Capital Gain tax occurs when you sell an asset for more than you paid for it. AI (software) is not an asset, and I'm not sure how you'd sell it. Computers and robots are assets (although they typically depreciate not appreciate.) Either way capital gains tax is applied to the asset not the productivity of the asset . The productivity in turn is taxed as pa…

The ownership of software absolutely is an asset. It’s Intellectual Property. What are you referring to?

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

#279

Post by titzer »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #271
doener wrote: 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.

The top 1% already pays more than 40% of all federal income tax at a 26.09% effective rate. The bottom 50% has an effective rate of 3.7% and contributes only 3% of all tax revenues. https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-in... How about the rich say that 50% of the economy should pay their fair share?

If we limited individual wealth to $999 million--just outright capped it, and enforced that--it would not impact these people in the slightest.

What it would impact is how easily these people could influence the political system and get themselves out of trouble.

At $400 billion net worth, Elon Musk could retire one hundred thousand times. He literally wrote multi-million dollar checks to various politicians and ran an illegal pay-for-votes scheme in Pennsylvania. And he'll face zero consequences for it.

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

#280

Post by komali2 »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #271
doener wrote: 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.

The top 1% already pays more than 40% of all federal income tax at a 26.09% effective rate. The bottom 50% has an effective rate of 3.7% and contributes only 3% of all tax revenues. https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-in... How about the rich say that 50% of the economy should pay their fair share?

I did a bit of mild googling.

1% of Americans control 30% of the wealth of the nation, and apparently 12% of property.

It's more than reasonable that people with that much wealth to their name pay the vast majority of the taxes, as it used to be.

From a nation building perspective, there's no reason to allow a couple hundred people to wield 52,000,000,000,000$ worth of assets. It means the economy has gotten far too clumpy and needs some redistribution. This isn't even really all that anti-capitalist. Capitalism can't survive long term without budding up against a government that regulates it.

Post reply on HN