81–90 of 158 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
thats for employees so they don't profit from government deals
You're saying it's not bribery if the CEO does it?
employees are not given the power to legally take bribes, but the people running the company can (and it's not called a bribe, it's called business)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an order of magnitude less than Bernie's 50% per-tech-trade tax (obviously impossible & bad), which he suggested as a means to fund the inevitable UBI [turns out former presidentical candiate Michael Yang wasn't wrong, just early , with his 2020 prediction]. Having never sold any stock on a short-term basis (i.e. I am a long-term value investor), I also disagree on the abysmally low tax rates I pay for long-t…
The issues you raise aren't fixed by your proposal. A 5% transaction tax will hurt both the rich and small investors. If you want to tax the rich, raise the cap on the capital gain tax rates for higher income (we already have the NIIT but you could raise it). If you think that capital gain taxes are unfairly low - they aren't, but let's say they are - just raise them. But a transaction tax is regressive and nonsensic…
Honestly, both capital gains and waged income taxes are too low. During the most-prosperous times of this Semiquincentennial Country [USA 1946-1984], the toptier taxrate was >50% (through democratic and republican, non-AIPAC, presidencies). At least on paper...
----
I agree that Sanders is too polar to accomplish anything, but his voice serves as a starting point for systemic problems.
For those of you that don't still live in "the hood" [like I choose to remain]: if only you knew how bad it is. Americans are literally starving; jobbed moms literally offering to do my dishes/lawn/anythingwinkwink.
I voluntarily remain celibate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an order of magnitude less than Bernie's 50% per-tech-trade tax (obviously impossible & bad), which he suggested as a means to fund the inevitable UBI [turns out former presidentical candiate Michael Yang wasn't wrong, just early , with his 2020 prediction]. Having never sold any stock on a short-term basis (i.e. I am a long-term value investor), I also disagree on the abysmally low tax rates I pay for long-t…
It's not about the aggregate tax burden. You're a long-term value investor because you live in a country where stock trading is an easy and low-friction thing the average person can do. A 5% transaction tax isn't really compatible with that; we would end up regressing to the global norm, where stocks are an esoteric hobby for rich people and the normal way to save for retirement is a savings account or cash piles und…
Isn't it something when here in the USA:
•Top 10% own 90% of stock marketcap
•Top 1% own 50% " "
----
You were saying?
----
I am healthily "median," which is somehow not middle class, anymore! My neighborhood is second-worse quintile =|
70%+ Americans live paycheck-to-paycheck (stat from 2022!) – it's higher on my suburban street (I'm one of only two, "not", out of dozens [i.e. with savings]).
USA! USA! USA! USA! U$A! USA! USA! U$A! U$A! U$A! U$A!
I sound conspiratorial - but everything happening in the US around AI + Crypto has the fingerprints of David Sacks and Theil on it. You can hear them talk about these things and then they happen. Sacks has talked extensively about the US government having stakes in tech companies for months and months on the All In pod. It seems like saw Russian Oligarchs and instead of being morally repulsed they thought "hmm that i…
>The proposal would also involve other US AI companies giving a similar stake to the government, the FT reported, although it is not clear yet whether companies such as Anthropic, Google and Meta would agree to the plan. I can't see Google or Meta shareholders agreeing to this? That said, Google, Meta, and SpaceX are all still founder-controlled using supervoting shares.
the choice is progressively giving more of the company to the government, or the government taking it by force it was long predicted that it is inevitable for national governments to fully nationalize AI labs and put them under military control
I'm not sure what's different here.
Isn't this what people wanted? The public to have access to the gains of these companies? I don't want public ownership of any private companies but this seems to be what slopulism leads us to
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Discussed also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15789108 .
Besides direct control, what could a dividend on the profits do what a well-proportioned corporate tax on profits cannot do? The state would only get dividends assuming it would not sell shares. And the state can exert control much more fairly (ie. to all competitors as well) with regulation and laws. Regulations and taxes are seen as 'un-american' I suppose, while giving stock to the government is not somehow?
Taxes depend on laws (however imperfect and full of loopholes) that are equally applied across all corporations.
Government equity/profit stakes are exactly the opposite: negotiated per corporation and cede power to the corporation.
If Altman was honest about his question framing, the simplest answer would be "Tax AI companies more heavily and use the proceeds to fund universal social benefits / payments."
In contrast, a one-off 5% equity stake is a bribe and nothing else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not about the aggregate tax burden. You're a long-term value investor because you live in a country where stock trading is an easy and low-friction thing the average person can do. A 5% transaction tax isn't really compatible with that; we would end up regressing to the global norm, where stocks are an esoteric hobby for rich people and the normal way to save for retirement is a savings account or cash piles und…
>where stocks are an esoteric hobby for rich people Isn't it something when here in the USA : •Top 10% own 90% of stock marketcap •Top 1% own 50% " " ---- You were saying? ---- I am healthily "median," which is somehow not middle class, anymore ! My neighborhood is second-worse quintile =| 70%+ Americans live paycheck-to-paycheck (stat from 2022!) – it's higher on my suburban street (I'm one of only two, " not ", out…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the choice is progressively giving more of the company to the government, or the government taking it by force it was long predicted that it is inevitable for national governments to fully nationalize AI labs and put them under military control
We have had for decades any number of defense contractors in the U.S. not taken by force by the U.S. They seem to have, nonetheless, happily produced what the military was wanting to purchase. I'm not sure what's different here.
AI is and does.