Live data from Hacker News

If AI replaces workers, should it also pay taxes?

english.elpais.com

741–750 of 1001 posts

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

#741
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.

> But you cannot seriously argue that capital owners "avoid contributing to the financing of our states and social systems".

Sure we can. Peter Thiel managed to put $5 billion in his Roth IRA.

https://www.propublica.org/article/billionaires-tax-avoidanc...

"Using stock deals unavailable to most people, Thiel has taken a retirement account worth less than $2,000 in 1999 and spun it into a $5 billion windfall... What’s more, as long as Thiel waits to withdraw his money until April 2027, when he is six months shy of his 60th birthday, he will never have to pay a penny of tax on those billions."

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

#742
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 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. So the government is going to fix this, right? Right...?

Most governments in the world exist to protect the interests of capital owners. Which makes sense - the creation of states in the first place was an act of, shall we say, radical capital acquisition.

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

#743

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100% agree! I find quite concerning that this point is not immediate in any conversation about AI or robots impacting the number of jobs, and the subsequent conversation about innovating new taxes. AI and robots are capital as any other automation on a factory, and capital gains should be taxed appropriately. This is not a new thing completely separate from the untouchable status quo wrt existing taxes. If it tickles…

What is the correct capital gains tax rate?

Why should capital have a separate tax rate than people?

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

#744
post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we limited individual wealth to $999 million--just outright capped it, and enforced that--it would not impact these people in the slightest. What it would impact is how easily these people could influence the political system and get themselves out of trouble. At $400 billion net worth, Elon Musk could retire one hundred thousand times . He literally wrote multi-million dollar checks to various politicians and ran…

> If we limited individual wealth to $999 million--just outright capped it, and enforced that--it would not impact these people in the slightest. It would certainly impact their willingness to do the company-building that creates all those innovations and jobs. With such a rule, Tesla wouldn't exist, no electric cars, no SpaceX, no cheap advanced launch tech; basically most of the modern world would be choked in the…

If some person isn't willing to do company building because they are already at the cap so it won't make them any more money, that just means that someone else will do that. We have a planet of 8 billion humans; there's no shortage of human talent.

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

#745

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The top 1% already pays more than 40% of all federal income tax at a 26.09% effective rate. The bottom 50% has an effective rate of 3.7% and contributes only 3% of all tax revenues. https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-in... How about the rich say that 50% of the economy should pay their fair share?

> How about the rich say that 50% of the economy should pay their fair share? How exactly do you propose that they pay their fair share when they literally do not have the money or assets to do so? Are you proposing modern day slavery? Perhaps people selling their family? I'm curious what happens if you take this line of thought to it's actual conclusion.

Well, it depends. One possible answer is that we should make sure that everyone is wealthy enough to pay taxes by redistributing the wealth. ~

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

#746

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your brokerage account is large enough that most of your change-in-net-worth happens in unrealized capital gains, your tax rate is 0%. That's pathological at the best of times and in a "capital wins" scenario it's positively thermonuclear.

Folks like to hate on capital gains tax. I think it's perceived as a rich-person deal. But homeowners, do they get taxed each year on the increase in value of their house? Almost the same thing, but not hated on the same way.

yes, we do. it's called a property tax, and it goes up based on market value regardless of whether you sold the property or not.

it is absolutely a tax on unrealized gains

and it's a huge problem to where people who bought the house long ago (or it was passed down to them) but whose income hasn't kept pace (like many people's) can't afford the increased property taxes anymore and have to move

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

#748

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a capitalist system, capital makes the rules for everyone. This is why capital earns more than labour. System working as intended.

Sorta depends on where one draws the line, but the line you are drawing, suggest there should be no government, so "system not working as intended"

Governments are fine. Any group of people large enough to not be a hivemind on everything has a government. Even if they don't formalize it, it will still emerge organically as they run into issues that require consensus on actions.

The crucial difference is between the governments actually run by the people, and the governments that claim to "represent" them.

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

#749

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think it's overly complicated. We could create a corporate tax which inversely factors human salaries in relation to created value/profits. That would be extremely complicated. And would of course be corrupted to the core by all kinds of different parties seeking to benefit from it.

We tried nothing and we're all out of ideas. Clearly, the current system is bad, but it's the best system possible! Let's take the corruption we know, over the unknown possibilities. Who knows, through hard work, one day you could be a billionaire too. Do you really want to sabotage your future like that? Sound a lot like communism, and you are not supposed the make a living off minimum wage anyway.

I was just kidding, of course you are right, and this is the only way to a splendid future!

First implement federal and state law that requires every worker performing any profession to have a college degree in that field.

Then companies are evaluated on how much work is produced in their business (for example by revenue), and they have to either contract the equivalent number of people with those industry-specific college degrees, or even better - license the degree from a college graduate. This can also be used to pay for tuition. The student gets a mortgage that pays for her education when she enters college, and then the lender has the right to part of either her salary, or the licensing fee for her degree to companies that need it, or to people who need it.

Let's say a chef who hasn't gone to culinary college, he can pay a culinary college graduate 20% of his salary to use their degree, which is a professional license. Or a company needing programmers. They can hire immigrants or an AI to program, and pay licensing fees to computer science graduates who have the degree.

Think what I thriving market for banks, investors, and insurance companies! They will be able to package these licenses and offer them on the market to individual workers or to companies for competitive and efficient rates. The college student of course gets rewarded as well, as they can rent out their degree, or even sell it. So a good student can get several degrees, and have a very good income from both his own work and from degree licensing fees. Of course we'll make sure that students belonging to an oppressed class be allowed to license their one degree to several places at the same time.

Banks could lend out money to students, with the future college degree as security. After graduation, the student either gets a job that requires that degree, or licenses that degree to another person or to an institution which collects degrees and licenses them on one or several degree licensing marketplaces. Most would use these third-party re-licensers to simplify the paperwork. For example when a company needs to license a degree for a temporary project of just a few months, or when a degree holder takes leave from their own job for let's say three months. Then she can have some income from renting out her degree during that time.

I'm sure you've already thought about the problem of students who have mortgaged their future degree, but do not graduate for some reason. What happens to the money the bank has invested? This problem is mitigated and solved by packing these degree mortgages into Credit default swaps to hedge the risk. Since most students will graduate and be a return on the investment, we will pack all degree mortgages into investment funds, and offer them on the international financial markets, with sophisticated leverage tools. So, investors will not feel the pain if 1 out of 10 students do not finish their degrees, that will be very much offset by those who do - especially when leverage is used.

This is how we solve social and environmental issues, make education affordable to everybody, create a great investment boom, and make the younger generations stakeholders in the economy. Smart parents would take advantage of degree mortgages for very low monthly rates if they sign them for their child already during pregnancy, meaning they could even be paid off before graduation. That's a good start in life!

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

#750
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.

Numbers, from the article:

> In the United States, for example, about 85% of federal tax revenue comes from labor income,

That means only 15% is coming from all other taxes, including corporate taxes, capital gains taxes, and other taxes on the wealthy (estate taxes), mostly because they find creative ways -- and loopholes by design -- that allow them to reduce those taxes significantly.

Post reply on HN