Live data from Hacker News

If AI replaces workers, should it also pay taxes?

english.elpais.com

531–540 of 1001 posts

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

#531
post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> where's my royalty check? I support the idea of UBI with zero conditions, but not this. You didn't get royalties before AI when someone was heavily influenced by your work/content and converted that into money. If you expected compensation, then you shouldn't have given away your work for free.

[flagged]

No, it's not and we don't. The numbers we do have suggest that it's great in developing societies and terrible in developed.

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

#532
post #233
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.

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.

If productivity increases, margins increase. When margins increase any business in a competitive environment will have to lower its prices in response to any other business lowering prices that got those automation gains.

Productivity increases result in lower prices in any competitive market.

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

#533

GNU and BSD-licensed software code has replaced a measurable amount of codes, as various companies no longer need to duplicate effort - should GNU be taxed? How?

Is GNU getting income by replacing human-made work ? GNU and FSF are nonprofit organizations providing free software to people.

It's the kind of organization that could be financed by taxes on AI mega-corp.

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

#534
post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see a natural equilibrium with a tension: automation (also through AI) causes unit economics to drop and results in cheaper prices. At the same time, salaries for contributors grow because their impact is so high. So you end up with a new equilibrium of much cheaper prices and much higher salaries. What, however, about the people who can’t contribute? IMO the most natural and fair approach is to support (through wh…

> salaries for contributors grow I dont see that happening

Indeed that has not happened: https://tinyurl.com/3dutardj

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

#535
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.

We should do what the moslems do. 2.5% wealth tax on everybody above a minimal wealth threshold!

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

#536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Homeowners get taxed every year on the value of their property. Let's do that to stocks, too.

> Homeowners get taxed every year on the value of their property By the local municipality, not the federal or state government.

That's a different tax. Which speaks to my original point that the term "capital gains tax" is a thing, and seems to be misunderstood.

Tax on property is a completely different tax which works in a different way, and has a different name. A new tax on possession of robots could completely be a thing, but it just wouldn't be called a "capitol gains" tax.

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

#537
post #260

Interesting how this argument is only popping now that technology is threatening white collar workers. Automation has been shoving blue collars out of the job market for a century. A single farmer can do with his machinery today what took a dozen of people just 50 years ago. Manufacturing has been super automated long ago. Even in commerce automated checkout has been replacing workers for more than a decade. In any c…

I think the current debate is less about whether automation happens and more about where the gains go

The same place they've always gone: to consumers purchasing the products made by those automated processes.

The average person now is far wealthier in terms of actual purchasing power than the average person 100 years ago, and that's largely because of automation making everything cheaper.

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

#539

Interesting how this argument is only popping now that technology is threatening white collar workers. Automation has been shoving blue collars out of the job market for a century. A single farmer can do with his machinery today what took a dozen of people just 50 years ago. Manufacturing has been super automated long ago. Even in commerce automated checkout has been replacing workers for more than a decade. In any c…

I'm open to the idea that companies need much larger barriers to functioning internationally. Not just because of their ability to pump money overseas, but also because they are often used to blatantly further the security goals of their parent countries (looking at you two USA and China, but everyone able to, seems to do it). Maybe the current system would've worked if it was built on many more small companies. Thes…

This also makes labor laws much less effective because the companies move countries to avoid them.

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

#540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not about logic. It’s about humanity. We are losing.

Sure doesn't feel like it. Life's never been better for more people.

That’s because you’re rich. And all your friends are probably rich.

https://fortune.com/2025/11/07/what-is-the-k-shaped-economy-...

Post reply on HN