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

Wealthy AI workers send San Francisco house prices soaring

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 76 posts

Re: Wealthy AI workers send San Francisco house prices soaring

#31

Post by altmanaltman »

rayiner wrote: post #10
smitty1e wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why hasn't AI proposed the ultimate "fair" taxation scheme?

We already have expert consensus on what’s the best taxes, people just don’t like the answer: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/07/19/157047211/six-... (“Three. Eliminate the corporate income tax. Completely. If companies reinvest the money into their businesses, that's good. Don't tax companies in an effort to tax rich people. Four. Eliminate all income and payroll taxes. All of them. For everyone. Taxes disco…

This is not "expert consensus", they bought in 5 economics with different political leanings and tried to get them to agree to common points (even though they do not agree with each other politically) and this was what they agreed on. And this was in 2012, 14 years ago. If you do the same experiment again with 100 economists, they might have a widely different plan.

Yes its an interesting article but you can't call it expert consensus and neither does NPR or any of the economists linked in there.

Re: Wealthy AI workers send San Francisco house prices soaring

#32

Post by dzhiurgis »

smitty1e wrote: post #9
m463 wrote: post #6

Obviously the solution is an ai-funded-house-wealth-tax. I'm in favor of a politician tax, and an attractive people tax (I'm not worried, I will use my tax receipt for virtue signalling)

Why hasn't AI proposed the ultimate "fair" taxation scheme?

Because it’s an oxymoron.

Re: Wealthy AI workers send San Francisco house prices soaring

#33

Post by autoexec »

rayiner wrote: post #27
dmitrig01 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To what end? "Best" implies towards a certain goal. Is the goal economic growth? Or is it a fair society? Those are very different. For example, if the goal is a fair society, then we should have a wealth tax, to disincentivize wealth equality. (And an income tax isn't so bad either in). Having only a consumption tax makes sense if the goal is (only) to reduce consumption.

The goal is economic growth, which matters more than anything else. Fun fact: in 1900, Argentina was one of the richest countries in the world, at about 60% of US GDP per capita: https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/argentina-was-one-o... . Today, Argentina has under 20% of the GDP per capita of the US. The difference is that the U.S. has grown at about 1.7% annually for the past century and change, while Argenti…

> The goal is economic growth, which matters more than anything else.

That sounds like an argument for human slavery

Re: Wealthy AI workers send San Francisco house prices soaring

#34

Post by dmitrig01 »

rayiner wrote: post #27
dmitrig01 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To what end? "Best" implies towards a certain goal. Is the goal economic growth? Or is it a fair society? Those are very different. For example, if the goal is a fair society, then we should have a wealth tax, to disincentivize wealth equality. (And an income tax isn't so bad either in). Having only a consumption tax makes sense if the goal is (only) to reduce consumption.

The goal is economic growth, which matters more than anything else. Fun fact: in 1900, Argentina was one of the richest countries in the world, at about 60% of US GDP per capita: https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/argentina-was-one-o... . Today, Argentina has under 20% of the GDP per capita of the US. The difference is that the U.S. has grown at about 1.7% annually for the past century and change, while Argenti…

> The goal is economic growth, which matters more than anything else.

To some people, but not everyone. It doesn't make sense to give unqualified "bests" without these kinds of caveats.

I don't personally share this view. I don't think growth or wealth are inherently good.

Re: Wealthy AI workers send San Francisco house prices soaring

#35

Post by shinryuu »

fyredge wrote: post #25
throw101010 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you want to "discourage consumption" by taxing it? Following the logic in your message. I know you are just quoting this transcript/article... but you likely have an idea of how this would work since you classify this as the best solution. Especially interested on how you would progressively tax consumption... How do you apply brackets to the day-to-day purchases? The general answer is to demand people to r…

I was initially skeptical of removal of income tax, but it's replacement with consumption tax makes sense. Currently, income is "discouraged" through financial instruments such as Securities-Backed Line of Credit (SBLOC), which are very much only feasible in the realm of the very rich. Some part of this loophole can be offset by corporate tax, but corporate tax is based on profit, not income, incentivising all sorts…

The problem with consumption tax is that it's regressive. Poor(er) people are hit harder with such a tax.

Re: Wealthy AI workers send San Francisco house prices soaring

#36

Post by jdashg »

rayiner wrote: post #10
smitty1e wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why hasn't AI proposed the ultimate "fair" taxation scheme?

We already have expert consensus on what’s the best taxes, people just don’t like the answer: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/07/19/157047211/six-... (“Three. Eliminate the corporate income tax. Completely. If companies reinvest the money into their businesses, that's good. Don't tax companies in an effort to tax rich people. Four. Eliminate all income and payroll taxes. All of them. For everyone. Taxes disco…

It's better for five people to earn $100k than for one person to earn $500k and four people nothing. That is a societal negative that progressive and marginal income tax discourages.

Re: Wealthy AI workers send San Francisco house prices soaring

#37

Post by neonstatic »

shinryuu wrote: post #35
fyredge wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was initially skeptical of removal of income tax, but it's replacement with consumption tax makes sense. Currently, income is "discouraged" through financial instruments such as Securities-Backed Line of Credit (SBLOC), which are very much only feasible in the realm of the very rich. Some part of this loophole can be offset by corporate tax, but corporate tax is based on profit, not income, incentivising all sorts…

The problem with consumption tax is that it's regressive. Poor(er) people are hit harder with such a tax.

Depends what is being taxed. Staples could be excluded, while luxury items taxed more heavily.

Re: Wealthy AI workers send San Francisco house prices soaring

#39

Post by OKRainbowKid »

autoexec wrote: post #33
rayiner wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The goal is economic growth, which matters more than anything else. Fun fact: in 1900, Argentina was one of the richest countries in the world, at about 60% of US GDP per capita: https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/argentina-was-one-o... . Today, Argentina has under 20% of the GDP per capita of the US. The difference is that the U.S. has grown at about 1.7% annually for the past century and change, while Argenti…

> The goal is economic growth, which matters more than anything else. That sounds like an argument for human slavery

And is not sustainable with finite and contested resources.

Re: Wealthy AI workers send San Francisco house prices soaring

#40

Post by snovv_crash »

astrange wrote: post #30
rayiner wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an NPR story with economics experts describing positions that are consensus in their field but politically unpopular. > Tuesday's show presented the common-sense, no-nonsense Planet Money economic plan — backed by economists of all stripes, but probably toxic to any candidate that might endorse it... There you have it, six major proposals that have broad agreement, at least among economists.

I doubt deleting income tax is a popular view among economists. Income and payroll taxes have the feature that you always have the money when it's time to pay the tax. That also means they're disinflationary. Whereas property taxes can be inflationary because they may require you to sell assets.

Georgism style property taxes are only due on the sale of the property so also have the money available then.
Post reply on HN