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

611–620 of 1001 posts

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

#611

Post by solumunus »

billy99k wrote: post #342
tossandthrow wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One can’t spend any of the money until it becomes personal assets. The oldest trick in the book is to use unrealized gains as collateral for loans - we even have banks specializing in this. Oh, and the US has a law that erases the tax bill for dead people - you'd be stupid not to use this trick.

Would you also be open to paying taxes in your 401k yearly based on unrealized gains?

Of course, as long as the tax is progressive. Custodians of assets almost all charge an annual feel on unrealised gains, it’s hardly a foreign concept…

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

#612

Post by appreciatorBus »

iberator wrote: post #444
appreciatorBus wrote: post #17

By this logic owners of wheel barrows should be taxed for all the manual labour jobs the wheel barrow destroyed.

The problem is that AI takes jobs faster than creating new ones. That's unique in human history

The problem is that thousands of sub-stackers, journalists, and "thought leaders" have realized they can make a living writing a weekly think piece speculating that AI will take jobs.

Sadly not unique in human history.

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

#613

Post by renewiltord »

wongarsu wrote: post #464
renewiltord wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basic income doesn’t do anything. We already have food stamps and so on. The largest sector of US federal spending is health and social welfare. We’d have to end pretty much all those programs to run a minuscule basic income.

> We’d have to end pretty much all those programs to run a minuscule basic income Isn't ending all those programs one of the core ideas of universal basic income? Instead of having a huge bureaucracy administering targeted social welfare you cut all the overhead and just pay everyone enough to exist, regardless of whether you actually need it. It'd still be more expensive, but giving people something dependable to fa…

Okay so let’s divide the US federal budget by the number of people. So $21k per person. Now what happens to the guy who needs dialysis. It costs $60k. Right now the federal government pays. Now it’s given him a third the cost back. He just dies?

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

#614

Post by mike_hearn »

solumunus wrote: post #600
mike_hearn wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that's been a common proposal from economists pretty much since people started examining how economies work. Some places do have a capital gains tax of zero. Switzerland is one of them, and Switzerland is economically more successful than the rest of Europe. Tax is one of those issues where there are actually correct and incorrect answers, thanks to many hundreds of years of active experimentation and relatively…

I’m not sure why all these economists bother arguing theory when obviously they should just go to you for the solutions. It’s all so simple afterall.

How much debate about this stuff still happens, outside of academics who need to publish or perish? From a quick check the only papers being published on this stuff are all variants of "if we add another variable to some model we can conclude the difference in tax incidence is " where Y is some minor variant of pre-existing beliefs that may or may not hold in reality. Outside of that there are occasional flareups caused by old-guard left wing politicians or activists getting into fights about it with economists, and not much else.

A lot of the debate on this topic is tedious anyway because it revolves around semantic distinctions that only exist in specific kinds of ideological discourse.

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

#615

Post by IAmBroom »

jameshart wrote: post #390
solumunus wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They’re referring to the comment that they’re replying to, which talks about capital gains tax in an entirely different context to how you referenced software ownership.

If a business invests in building an AI system, they now have an asset, and the value of the business reflects the fact the business owns that software asset now - if someone were to buy the business they would get the AI software and all its potential to monetize that asset in the future, so of course it has value. If its value grows beyond the value the business originally invested to acquire it, it is quite litera…

Honestly? Marketing and investment overreaction.

What is it capable of generating in real profits? Yet to be seen.

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

#616

Post by IAmBroom »

unboxingelf wrote: post #609
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.

I argue there is a more fundamental problem with the money: Debasement. Debasement is an invisible tax and its effects far outweigh individuals bypassing taxes.

... which is a different topic.

This thread is about the fair taxation of AI, if any.

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

#617

Post by carlosjobim »

jayd16 wrote: post #583
carlosjobim wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever done anything together with a group of other people? That is a company. That's why they are called companies. They are a group of people doing things. That has existed for millions of years already. First as hunting companies, then as raiding companies. It exists in other species as well. It will never go away. It has existed in every human society, no matter what political or economical ideology. The r…

If you conflate corporations with any grouping of people, then they're the same as cartels, gangs, feudal kingdoms... Clearly we're talking about a specific modern legal entity with a specific organization that, as you say, can change.

Okay, ban the corporation as a legal entity. And all other companies as legal entity so that they don't become an escape hatch.

It will not take longer than until sunrise next morning before all those corporations are now different single individuals who contract their whole company structure again and now have everything from job contracts to investor contracts in their own names instead, using probably the same kind of complicated contracts that preceded the modern corporation as a legal entity. What did you benefit?

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

#618

Post by IAmBroom »

zozbot234 wrote: post #407
robinhoode wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is a bad deal. Capital makes the marginal worker more productive, not less. Why should workers care about being more productive if they do not reap the rewards in terms of wages? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decoupling_of_wages_from_produ...

Total compensation involves more than just wages. Providing benefits such as healthcare coverage is inherently expensive, since productivity gains in healthcare have been limited.

A bad-faith argument.

Workers do not benefit in increased compensation of any sort when AI increases company productivity.

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

#619

Post by overrun11 »

gortok wrote: post #579
andsoitis wrote: post #549

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The fact that capital owners successfully avoid contributing to the financing of our states and social systems is Are you sure capital owners do not contribute to our states and financial systems? For instance, Jeff Bezos is worth $238 billion even though Amazon has a $2.6 trillion market cap. That's $2.4 trillion of value created for other shareholders plus trillions more for employees, customers, suppliers, gover…

One thing to point out that is lost in these arguments of “they create value for the shareholders”. Folks that own a vast amount of stock do not pay taxes on that stock. They own the shares, and they take out loans against those shares. At some point they rollover or pay off those loans by selling some shares, but the shares have increased in value significantly in that time, or they’ve been granted new shares. When…

First, taxes still get paid when the individual dies as estate tax. Second, increased shareholder value typically means more corporate profit which is also taxed. Third, dividends are taxed. So your claim that the shareholder value never makes its way into the tax system is plainly false.

This is all aside from the fact that increased shareholder value means a more abundance society regardless of the increase in taxes. We could quibble over the exact distribution of who gains from the enlarged pie but it's certainly not the case the 100% of it goes to capitalists so consumers and employees also benefit.

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

#620

Post by pyrolistical »

immibis wrote: post #379
smallmancontrov wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think both stocks and homes should be taxed on realized value. If you sell it, that realizes the value, but also if you use it as collateral, that realizes the value. If you just live in it, we could say that it realizes the amount of rent you would have paid, or that it realizes nothing.

This makes the most sense. The trick is to tax all realized value.

I’m happy for billionaires have their net worth go up, as long as it can be taxed if any amount they realize.

So this includes using their networth as collateral, donations (even to charities) and passing as inheritance (which should be taxed upon death)

And if the margin all tax rate over a 1 million is extremely high, then it’s pointless being a paper billionaire. People would actually spend their wealth and contribute to the economy

Post reply on HN