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

891–900 of 1001 posts

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

#891

Post by nradov »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #876
nradov wrote: post #847

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tax rate for corporations should be zero. The need to do tax accounting and associated financial engineering is a deadweight economic loss. Eliminate corporate income tax and raise taxes on the highest income employees and investors to make the change revenue neutral. Ultimately the profits flow to those individuals one way or another so better to collect all the tax revenue from them anyway. This change would in…

That would work if you were going to use VAT for everyone, but as long as you're using income tax for individuals, setting the corporate rate to zero would be an obvious tax dodge. You'd put all your assets and income into a corporation that pays no taxes and then have it loan you money when you want to spend it on something.

That's not an actual problem. The IRS already has clear rules requiring that certain corporate expenses are treated as taxable individual income if they directly benefit a particular employee or investor.

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

#892

Post by wyre »

unglaublich wrote: post #103
wyre wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By your logic wheel barrows could potentially replace >90% of all jobs. AI is on track to being able to remove a society-changing amount of jobs, wheel barrows improved worker's efficiency.

Industrialization did replace 90% of people's jobs. And the only thing that happened was that people got new jobs to do.

Wheel barrows are not industrialization. hfs

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

#894

Post by bluecheese452 »

jimbokun wrote: post #807
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.

It's unfortunate, but corporations moving to nations with lower corporate rates could reduce overall revenue if the domestic rates are too aggressive. In many ways it's easier to corporations to change nations than citizens.

Ban corporations that do this from selling in your domestic market.

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

#895

Post by bluecheese452 »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #327
smallmancontrov wrote: post #323

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? Their property tax goes up.

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

#896

Post by YetAnotherNick »

yibg wrote: post #882
YetAnotherNick wrote: post #873

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no tax loophole. The only thing they are getting is higher leverage against borrowing, and the only difference would occur if that individual would go bankrupt in that the entity that they borrowed from wouldn't need to pay income tax. So the only way to pay less tax is to surrender all your assets.

Or die and pass it to your children. Buy, borrow, die. Kill the step up basis loophole.

No it doesn't work that way. If you pass on the stock options, you pass on the tax burden.

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

#897

Post by kiliantics »

llsf wrote: post #804
harperlee wrote: post #187

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 if I build and manage a dark factory ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lights_out_(manufacturing) ) and it produces gizmos. Since all my competitors are also running dark factories, we compete essentially on source materials + energy (assuming we have similar design/quality). Margin would be eventually razor thin. The dark factory does not make much capital gains, even as it produces 1,000 gizmo per second. The ca…

Taxes used to be based only on property rather than labour, maybe we should go back to that. Of course this won't happen as it is a force of wealth-deconcentration.

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

#898

Post by machomaster »

bcrosby95 wrote: post #826
thethimble wrote: post #763

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Damn, I knew when I picked "not billionaire" I would regret it.

This is because of badly organized incentives. What we should do is to implement a tax on poor people. This will make them understand that being poor is less profitable than being rich and they will be motivated to become rich.

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

#899

Post by machomaster »

Zigurd wrote: post #578
andsoitis wrote: post #573

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If AGI is actually attainable, then, sure, planned economies will be more performant than market economies What is the logic?

Most of the definitions I've heard of AGI are that it outperforms humans at complex professional tasks. That would include capital allocation.

Capital allocation is not an IQ problem with only one correct solution that can be made only with hard data.

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

#900

Post by ryandrake »

mplewis9z wrote: post #682
ryandrake wrote: post #668

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's indeed a problem. Thanks for bringing it up. These things clearly are not as harmless as I had assumed.
Post reply on HN