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

681–690 of 1001 posts

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

#681

Post by danhon »

kortilla wrote: post #532
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.

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.

* competitive

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

#682

Post by mplewis9z »

ryandrake wrote: post #668
paul7986 wrote: post #661

Earlier quoted context omitted.

States not being able to regulate this is dangerous. A close friend of mine has given up on reality and talks about Roberto the love of her life the one she always wanted and Roberto is chatGPT :-(. She previously mentioned she didnt like chatGPT 5.0 cause it wasnt as agreeable yet now she says 5.1 is better.. back to how it was before 5.0 and now out of the blue mentioned Roberto. chatGPT is a sypcophant and without…

I dunno--of all the AI based products coming out, the whole "AI girlfriend / AI boyfriend" thing bothers me the least. If someone can afford it and they want a play relationship with a computer, then I don't see the harm. It's probably safer, better and healthier than many real-human relationships are. If they're getting what they need out of the computer, who are we to judge? I would change my opinion if it could be…

The problem is when things like this happens: https://apnews.com/article/chatbot-ai-lawsuit-suicide-teen-a...

When AI behaves sycohphantically towards someone, it can encourage and exacerbate any mental health problems they may already be having, especially related to social isolation.

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

#683

Post by cakealert »

The real question is if AI replaces labor, what will keep democracy in place?

People who advocate for things like UBI don't seem to realize that when voters don't have a share in the productivity of their nation, they become 100% a liability. The reason democracy persists is that the powers that be aren't incentivized to destroy democracy as it would harm them too. In 10 years that will no longer be the case. Arguably, you can already see this today as the future expectations affect the present.

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

#684

Post by fizx »

SunshineTheCat wrote: post #680
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% of earners in the US pay 40% of all income taxes. https://usafacts.org/articles/who-pays-the-most-income-tax/

This isn't about income.

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

#685

Post by jameshart »

bruce511 wrote: post #541
solumunus wrote: post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that’s how a software business works. The OP seemed to be talking about how we need to reform tax due to worker replacement. Everyone is talking past each other.

Correct, building an AI is an asset, which can then be rented to other businesses. However the thread revolves around employers replacing employees with AI. Given that the number of AI creators is minimal, and the number of companies replacing employees is large, it follows that most companies replacing employees are renting AI, they did not create it. Hence, for those companies, AI is not an asset, it is an expense.…

Of course businesses have always leased equipment to reduce the need for labor. This isn’t materially any different than paying your neighbor to borrow his ox and plow so you only need one guy to work your field instead of three.

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

#686

Post by pinkmuffinere »

mrwrong wrote: post #675
jimbokun wrote: post #670

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can we have a grown up discussion that uses numbers instead of hyperbole? Certainly you can argue income inequality is too high and capital holders and high earners need to pay much more. But you cannot seriously argue that capital owners "avoid contributing to the financing of our states and social systems". They pay a lot in capital gains and income taxes, even if they don't contribute as much as they should.

> Can we have a grown up discussion starting your reply with an insult, great way to spark "grown up discussion"

What is the non-insulting alternative? Here's my proposal:

Can we have an honest discussion that uses numbers instead of hyperbole?

Notably, that still seems pretty insulting to me. jimbokun wants to have an honest discussion about the problem, using true data instead of emotional exaggeration. This is a reasonable thing to ask IMO, but of course it seems like an insult towards the person that's making stuff up.

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

#687

Post by pinkmuffinere »

fizx wrote: post #684
SunshineTheCat wrote: post #680

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The top 1% of earners in the US pay 40% of all income taxes. https://usafacts.org/articles/who-pays-the-most-income-tax/

This isn't about income.

What is it about if not income?

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

#688

Post by adventured »

jimbokun wrote: post #670
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.

Can we have a grown up discussion that uses numbers instead of hyperbole? Certainly you can argue income inequality is too high and capital holders and high earners need to pay much more. But you cannot seriously argue that capital owners "avoid contributing to the financing of our states and social systems". They pay a lot in capital gains and income taxes, even if they don't contribute as much as they should.

The whole reason for the use of "pay their fair share" while never actually defining what the fair share is supposed to be. It's solely about hit & run propaganda. Avoiding discussing actual numbers is a requirement to the politics.

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

#689

Post by physicsguy »

johnebgd wrote: post #458
twodave wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People keep trying to tie these two things together, forgetting the fact that ZIRP also ended 3 years ago, and that combined with the end of the COVID-era employer credits are when the layoffs really began. I won't say LLMs are having no impact at all on employment, but not to the degree where the job pool has dried up. Companies were encouraged to over-hire for years, and now that the free money is gone, they're act…

The mishandling of how they rewrote section 174 of the tax code also caused a lot of layoffs of developers.

Only in the US but ZIRP and redundancies have been worldwide

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

#690

Post by erin_lave »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #575
thesmtsolver2 wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, you are assuming there is a central benevolent dictator who can compute "Value" more accurately than millions of people collectively voting with their wallets.

If I run around town smashing windows with a rock, GDP goes up. Computing value more accurately than financial markets is not difficult: the bar is on the floor.

> If I run around town smashing windows with a rock, GDP goes up.

I don't believe that's true. I believe that's called the "Broken Window Fallacy" in Economics.

Post reply on HN