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

751–760 of 1001 posts

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

#751

Post by Terr_ »

pjc50 wrote: post #476
ben_w wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think I'd favor a "personal allowance" model similar to income tax, where you get the first X units of energy tax free and then have to pay VAT, carbon taxes etc. on the rest of it. I can see why this is tempting, but I think there's a better way to legislate with this, especially with that poster child. I'm a landlord of a flat. I used to live in it before I left the UK. The EPC rating is D, so despite the doubl…

I remember there was a pressure group "insulate britain". Their aggressive tactics got them banned and arrested, and the idea was never heard from again. I sometimes wonder if that wasn't the intended outcome, a low-temperature conspiracy theory.

You mean in the sense of deliberately discrediting "invest in insulation to reduce fossil-fuel consumption", with a small group designed to fail?

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

#752

Post by ori_b »

gwbas1c wrote: post #420
jlawson wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that for the vast majority of people to be psychologically healthy they must have a job. This isn't a societal decision, it's a reality about how humans are. The alternative is like feeding an animal instead of letting it live the lifestyle it's adapted for. That helps it in the moment but over time its capacities atrophy and it ends up weakened, twisted and harmed with nothing to spend its natural ins…

> The problem is that for the vast majority of people to be psychologically healthy they must have a job. This isn't a societal decision, it's a reality about how humans are. The "job" can be things like volunteering, artwork, finding a cause, inventing, raising children, teaching... Work can be subsidized and based around personal interest and achieve the "psychologically healthy" aspect that you describe.

> volunteering

Sure, I guess -- if you're not charging for your time, it's more efficient to use human labor than AI+robots.

> inventing

If we get working AI, humans will be unemployable at inventing useful things.

> teaching

There are already multiple startups trying to replace teachers in the classroom.

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

#753

Post by insane_dreamer »

tt24 wrote: post #708
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...

This concept has been thoroughly debunked. Wages and productivity track each other very very well.

That has not been true since the early 70s. Increases in productivity are multiples of the increase in wages since then.

World Economic Forum: https://www.weforum.org/stories/2020/11/productivity-workfor...

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

#754

Post by janalsncm »

It would be great if we stopped talking about “AI” like a sentient monolith. AI is not one thing. It is a set of methods for solving tasks with a computer.

Instead, it should be called “automation”. If we do that, it’s immediately obvious that this article doesn’t make sense. Should automation pay taxes isn’t even coherent. The obvious answer is, those using automation pay taxes, and should continue to. Perhaps at an elevated rate to compensate for the social costs.

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

#755

Post by warkdarrior »

malfist wrote: post #743
jimbokun wrote: post #672

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the correct capital gains tax rate?

Why should capital have a separate tax rate than people?

Also, if companies have rights like people do, then they and their shareholders should be taxed like people are.

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

#756

Post by ggreer »

komali2 wrote: post #405
iso1631 wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be in the top .1% you need a wealth of about $60m, certainly nothing to be worried about, it gives you a very nice standard of living. But it's a lot nearer to someone at the 90%ile wealth of about $2m than the kind of power that those with $1b, let alone centi-billionaires, have. You're talking top level entertainers (actors, sportmen etc)

Good point, maybe the more important statistic is that there's 900 billionaires in America, representing about 7 trillion in collective wealth. The USA GDP is 30 trillion... the situation just seems inherently wrong to me.

You are comparing a stock to a flow. Billionares in the US don't make $7 trillion per year. They accumulated that wealth over their lifetimes. If you want to compare apples to apples: The net worth of the US (as much as that concept can make sense) is around $176 trillion. That includes $269 trillion in assets and $123 trillion in debts.

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

#757

Post by int_19h »

ozmodiar wrote: post #249
dns_snek wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't discount the collective power and ingenuity of a few billion oppressed people.

Looking back at the degrading lives commoners have suffered throughout a lot of human history, I'm pretty split. And that was before rulers had AI and autonomous defenses to keep everyone in line. Frankly, I think this exact line of thought is what's pushing a lot of AI investment right now.

I share your concerns, but also I don't think this analogy is very close. Historically the reason why commoners could be kept oppressed is because the relative amount of "firepower" available to individuals was fairly small to begin with, and easy to regulate. Many places banned military weapons like swords for the commoners, for example, precisely so that they couldn't quickly form a militia capable of challenging their feudal lord's retinue. I don't think that's possible in the modern world, though, because even with heavy regulation of arms, the stuff that's readily available (or can be put together from things that are readily available) is already too destructive to contain.

The modern rulers rely more on brainwashing and less on direct oppression for this exact reason. Not that the latter doesn't happen, mind you, but I also can't think of any modern day regime that is sustained solely by force, without some measure of popular support.

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

#758

Post by rayiner »

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.

Economists generally agree that taxing capital owners is bad policy and taxes should be directed at consumers: 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 discourage whatever you're taxing, but we like income, so why tax it? Payroll taxes discourage creating jobs. Not such a good idea. Instead, impose a consumption tax, designed to be progressive to protect lower-income households.

Our fundamental problem is not that we don't tax Jeff Bezos. It's that we don't tax the people who have multiple boxes of Chinese goods coming from Amazon to their houses every day.

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

#759

Post by ASalazarMX »

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.

What a naive position. People hate to pay taxes, the more they have to pay, the more they avoid it. Megacorps openly hiding money in fiscal paradises are the tip of the iceberg. Companies, and individuals, at every level, try to pay as little as possible, becoming as creative as the methods their wealth can unlock.

If billionaires (soon to be trillionaries) paid as much taxes as their wealth disparity compared to the middle class, a significant percent of the population would be exempt from taxes by the sheer insignificance of their contribution, and I don't mean only the poorest people.

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

#760

Post by thethimble »

n1b0m wrote: post #712
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.

Ultra-wealthy individuals legally minimise their tax liability by: Receiving a relatively low official salary (Bezos's Amazon salary was $81,840 for many years). Not receiving dividends, so the wealth remains in stock that is not taxed annually. Borrowing money against their stock holdings to fund their lifestyle. Loans are not considered income and are therefore not taxable, and the interest on the loans can sometim…

Borrowing against illiquid assets should be considered a taxable event. Seems like this would entirely fix the loophole.
Post reply on HN