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

881–890 of 1001 posts

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

#881

Post by SirMaster »

timeon wrote: post #865
SirMaster wrote: post #798

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK but how realistic is that? Not everyone lives in a city nearby local stores. There is such a wide variety of products that people go to Amazon for. I know I do. So many things are niche I can't see how any local stores could exist to stock things like that in even a 1 hour range from a majority of the population. How many people are going to drive hours to go to a special boutique that has this random thing they w…

> OK but how realistic is that? Not everyone lives in a city nearby local stores. Are you serious? I live in country where we are not using Amazon.

And you don’t have another big online marketplace that’s basically similar?

And if not, you are saying you have a similar availability of such a vast network of goods, almost anything you might want and the convenience of fast delivery and simple returns via local shops or something?

I guess I’m not sure what you are suggesting. I personally find that shopping and finding and acquiring the products I want is vastly more convenient and easier with Amazon than before we had Amazon and yes I was around back then too. I’d never want to go back personally. Most family and friend I know seem to feel the same.

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

#882

Post by yibg »

YetAnotherNick wrote: post #873
ugh123 wrote: post #834

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you don’t receive income then it obviously shouldn’t be taxed Right, but you're ignoring the loop-hole OP mentioned where you borrow un-taxed money then deduct it. Kill the loop holes.

There is no tax loophole. The only thing they are getting is higher leverage against borrowing, and the only difference would occur if that individual would go bankrupt in that the entity that they borrowed from wouldn't need to pay income tax. So the only way to pay less tax is to surrender all your assets.

Or die and pass it to your children. Buy, borrow, die. Kill the step up basis loophole.

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

#883

Post by yibg »

tt24 wrote: post #814
insane_dreamer wrote: post #753

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That has not been true since the early 70s. Increases in productivity are multiples of the increase in wages since then. World Economic Forum: https://www.weforum.org/stories/2020/11/productivity-workfor...

This is misinformation and has been debunked at length. The graph compares median wage to mean productivity which is nonsensical.

Isn't that the whole point? That as total productivity has increased (represented by the mean), the wage increase has gone to the top.

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

#884

Post by ursAxZA »

Terr_ wrote: post #769
ursAxZA wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand the need to seed future debates early. My hesitation comes from the fact that most proposals implicitly assume a “fixed physical capability” for AI systems — something we don’t actually have yet. In practice, social impact won’t be determined by abstractions but by power budgets, GPU throughput, reliability of autonomous systems, and years of real-world operation. If scaling hits physical or economic lim…

I think "tax AI" makes as little sense as "taxing Jacquard looms" or "taxing robot factory-arms"... Which are all part of a long-term trend, and attention to that trend is overdue, rather than premature.

Would you be comfortable giving that answer to someone who’s homeless or financially stuck today? I wouldn’t — and that’s the whole point.

We talk about tomorrow far more than we talk about what’s happening right in front of us. Quantum computing was ‘just around the corner.’ It wasn’t. Fusion was ‘imminent.’ Still isn’t.

I never argued we shouldn’t discuss the future.

I said it’s a matter of balance — something I already stated explicitly.

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

#885

Post by tt24 »

yibg wrote: post #883
tt24 wrote: post #814

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is misinformation and has been debunked at length. The graph compares median wage to mean productivity which is nonsensical.

Isn't that the whole point? That as total productivity has increased (represented by the mean), the wage increase has gone to the top.

That’s because most of the productivity increases come from the top as well.

Compare like to like. Mean productivity increase tracks mean wage increase super well, same for median productivity increase vs median wage increase.

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

#886

Post by Rexxar »

tt24 wrote: post #814
insane_dreamer wrote: post #753

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That has not been true since the early 70s. Increases in productivity are multiples of the increase in wages since then. World Economic Forum: https://www.weforum.org/stories/2020/11/productivity-workfor...

This is misinformation and has been debunked at length. The graph compares median wage to mean productivity which is nonsensical.

The people you are replying to are trying to have a meaningful discussion by providing references and some basic argumentation. Can you add some link or arguments that explain more strongly your point of view instead of using strong affirmations ('misinformation', 'debunked', 'nonsensical') without any trace of argumentation and no reference at all ?

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

#887

Post by komali2 »

solumunus wrote: post #631
komali2 wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imminent or not, what jobs will remain? Fixing the robots? Technology strives to reduce cost, labor is typically the largest cost, so is it not inevitable that labor will be made mostly redundant?

No it’s not. It’s not inevitable that we get super intelligence, or even regular intelligence AGI. Even if we did, the cost of building, running and maintaining a robot to do manual jobs - I would argue this will never be cheaper than paying humans to do the same thing.

I didn't even mention AI though, but, really, you don't think automation or improved efficiencies will make human labor redundant? What about 30% unemployment, is even that feasible to you? Because that would also be catastrophic to the USA.

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

#888

Post by haroldp »

UltraSane wrote: post #866
haroldp wrote: post #846

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also that's a singular industry 200 years ago, 95% of the workers in my country worked in subsistence farming. Today, only 2% are farmers. The whole spectrum of labor has turned upside down and upside down again, in that time. It has certainly not been a singular industry.

There is no guarantee that this pattern will continue and that capitalism will always make enough good jobs for everyone who loses jobs to automation.

There is likewise no indication that it won't. And if I am looking at a pattern where a thousand careers were destroyed by the advance of technology and were swiftly replaced by tens of thousands of new ones, it is not unreasonable to suspect that the pattern is likely repeat.

My job title did not even exist when I was born.

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

#889

Post by tt24 »

Rexxar wrote: post #886
tt24 wrote: post #814

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is misinformation and has been debunked at length. The graph compares median wage to mean productivity which is nonsensical.

The people you are replying to are trying to have a meaningful discussion by providing references and some basic argumentation. Can you add some link or arguments that explain more strongly your point of view instead of using strong affirmations ('misinformation', 'debunked', 'nonsensical') without any trace of argumentation and no reference at all ?

I’d recommend reading my comment more carefully. The argument is pretty clear and straightforward.

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

#890

Post by acituan »

nradov wrote: post #841
acituan wrote: post #810

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Employers paid for healthcare in 1970s too, and even for higher percentages of the workforce. If there is a premium inflation surpassed the CPI, that is still inflation, not real growth. If there’s an inflation problem in delivering a temporally comparable service, that is not a “real wage” item for the employee [1]. So what the nominal figure today shouldn’t be relevant. I agree it shouldn’t be an employer item too,…

I don't understand your point. Very few people in their 70s have employer sponsored group health insurance. Most are only on Medicare, perhaps with a commercial Medicare Advantage or Medicare Supplement plan.

My bad, skipped a chain of thought there. Since medicare pays less than private insurance, hospitals can and do shift costs (which in reality is "opportunity cost of profit") to the latter, which pushes to private premiums up. Regardless, this is a minor effect. Very little of the inflation is justified with productivity gains, as you said it is a very inefficient healthcare system. US prices clock 2x-4x of comparable OPEC peers, admin percent is higher etc.
Post reply on HN