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

771–780 of 1001 posts

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

#771

Post by jimbokun »

ASalazarMX wrote: post #759
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.

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…

Even with all that, top 1% of earners pay more than 40% of overall tax revenue in the US.

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

#772

Post by ceejayoz »

thethimble wrote: post #763
ceejayoz wrote: post #741

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

But this strategy is also eligible to you. Nothing is stopping you from turning your Roth IRA into a multi billion tax free gain.

"Using stock deals unavailable to most people" is the very first phrase I quoted.

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

#773

Post by malfist »

icedchai wrote: post #767
warkdarrior wrote: post #755

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You want to tax people twice? Corporations pay taxes on profit. Shareholders pay taxes on dividends and capital gains.

Sure. Why not? We already get taxed multiple ways. I pay income tax and sales tax

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

#774

Post by jimbokun »

ceejayoz wrote: post #741
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.

> 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…

Yes!

This is exactly the kind of thing I was looking for.

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

#775

Post by ceejayoz »

jimbokun wrote: post #771
ASalazarMX wrote: post #759

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Even with all that, top 1% of earners pay more than 40% of overall tax revenue in the US.

Now do the corresponding percentage of the wealth they hoover up.

(Plus, one of the tricks employed is to avoid earning actual taxable money. Steve Jobs famously had a $1 salary; folks like Musk now just borrow against their ever-rising shares. https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trov...)

> But take out a loan, and these days you’ll pay a single-digit interest rate and no tax; since loans must be paid back, the IRS doesn’t consider them income. Banks typically require collateral, but the wealthy have plenty of that.

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

#776

Post by int_19h »

jlawson wrote: post #401
immibis wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The wrong decision wasn't using productivity enhancers - it was building a society around the idea that everyone MUST have a job, even in the presence of substantial productivity enhancers which massively decrease the number of jobs. We've scraped by so far... so far.

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…

They must have something interesting to do. It doesn't have to be a job.

The ideal society is one where humans only do things that they actually enjoy doing, whatever that is, and automation does the rest. Any human being forced to perform labor not because they want to, but because they need to do so to survive, should be considered a blight on the honor of our species.

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

#777

Post by nightshift1 »

SirMaster wrote: post #562
code_for_monkey wrote: post #555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say they dont contribute. I don't think Jeff Bezos has contributed anything positive, at all. He's managed to become insanely rich in a system that rewards bad behavior, so what? All that value isnt doing anything.

Are you saying Amazon isn't a positive? Or that Bezos didn't contribute to making Amazon what it is? I think it's pretty clear Amazon is quite a positive given by how many people like using it so much for it's convenient 1-stop shop, quick shipping, and hassle-free return process. Are you saying it would be better to have to shop at 1000 different little websites with probably crappy or at least inconsistent return p…

People would be more likely to shop in their local stores, buy local products, and sustain the local economy.

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

#779

Post by CGMthrowaway »

The income tax was never meant to fall on flesh and blood citizens at all.

The original draft was a corporate excise tax. Only after the tariffs came down did the Wall Street/Progressive coalition widen the net to wages so the Federal Reserve’s new war-credit machine could be serviced by the very labor it would soon dilute through inflation.

An alternative to putting a tax on "AI workers" could be to restore the tariff wall that protected wages. I suspect I'll be downvoted for suggesting that though.

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

#780

Post by jimbokun »

insane_dreamer wrote: post #750
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.

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.

Yes! Numbers are good.

Making capital gains taxes more progressive is a good first step.

Post reply on HN