[dead]
If AI replaces workers, should it also pay taxes?
991–1000 of 1001 posts
Re: If AI replaces workers, should it also pay taxes?
#992Earlier quoted context omitted.
Switzerland taxes wealth instead of capital gains (except for professional investors). In some ways taxing wealth is quite simple, because wealth is already meticulously recorded via contracts and owners go out of their way to estimate the magnitude of their wealth for example to borrow money or for other financial and economic obligations. Another approach would be to tax capital gains at the same rate as income and…
Capital gains are risky to generate. Many investments completely fail and when that happens, investors get very little tax relief. If you increase capital gains tax, the more risky ideas will no longer be viable investment vehicles even though some of them would have been successful. Across the entire economy, the net effect will be less innovation, stagnation, and loss of power relative to foreign countries. Tax rat…
> Capital gains are risky to generate. Many investments completely fail and when that happens, investors get very little tax relief.
You seem to conflate and misunderstand a few things here. For one, capital gains are paid out from profits, so they leave the company's budget and are not part of investment.
Secondly, holding stock and stock trading has been immensely profitable, relatively low risk and require little if done reasonably and over long periods.
More and more studies are affirming that simply buying index funds and holding them over long periods is _less_ risky than buying bonds.
> Tax rates are carefully tuned to maximize tax revenue without unduly disincentivizing production.
They reflect power relations and tax competition more than anything.
> To change them purely based on vibes would be catastrophically stupid.
Not based on "vibes". The people who actually generate wealth are workers and consumers, not stock holders.
> Please don't vote.
We should mutually respect our rights to vote even if we disagree.
Re: If AI replaces workers, should it also pay taxes?
#993Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tax physical assets. Someone has to pay otherwise it gets confiscated by the government. Then exact ownership doesn't matter.
How do you determine the "value" or an original painting which the current holder acquired 40 years ago in for $X francs?
By offering to buy it.
Re: If AI replaces workers, should it also pay taxes?
#994Earlier quoted context omitted.
But if we fully automate how to make and sell and deliver TVs and blenders and now I can get a 200" TV for $2 and a blender for $0.05 but now I don't have a job so I can't afford even a basic apartment what do we do with our society? Like sure all the goods are stupid cheap but things that are actually naturally rivalrous and exclusive like real estate continue to hold value most random people are pretty fucked it se…
> But if we fully automate how to make and sell and deliver TVs and blenders and now I can get a 200" TV for $2 and a blender for $0.05 but now I don't have a job so I can't afford even a basic apartment what do we do with our society? Delivery should be automated. Rent would obviously crater as building housing craters too (robots making it, materials being extracted and manufactured by robots too). But again, it wo…
There is only so much land where people actually want to live. Governments put restrictions on what can be built. It might end up costing $20 to build a 100-story apartment complex, but if the government says buildings can only be five stories high or you have to only build single family homes it doesn't matter.
Re: If AI replaces workers, should it also pay taxes?
#995Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Well, you still have to pay for the energy (to extract raw material and transform it into final product, and move final product into your hands). But then you're back to having something that isn't automated. If machines do this then it's free. If you need people to do it then people have jobs. > And as we move to the "we automate everything" end of the spectrum, the number of jobs lost would increase, the taxes co…
> > Well, you still have to pay for the energy (to extract raw material and transform it into final product, and move final product into your hands). > But then you're back to having something that isn't automated. If machines do this then it's free. If you need people to do it then people have jobs. Not sure to follow, machines need energy as input. So unless energy is free and unlimited, even if the machines run wi…
> Not sure to follow, machines need energy as input. So unless energy is free and unlimited, even if the machines run without people, there is a cost for the products.
But where does energy come from? You would have machines that can make solar panels and install them and operate a power grid, or people would still have jobs doing those things.
> Unless you also assume that unemployed people could get some ABI or SNAP from government (in US already 1 out 8 adult receives SNAP) to pay for food (cost less with 100% automation, but still cost the energy for fertilizer, tractors, transport, transformation), for shelter, etc. and pay for healthcare.
If everything other than healthcare was automated then energy production, fertilizer production, tractor production, transportation, etc. would all be automated.
If everything is automated then everything is free. If there is still anything that can't be automated then people still have jobs doing that.
Re: If AI replaces workers, should it also pay taxes?
#996Earlier quoted context omitted.
The very fact that a company grows in value from $X to $X * 1000 is proof that it’s productive use of capital.
You can say that, but then I can say why do we care about whether something is a productive use of capital? What I care about is life being good for human beings, not "productive use of capital".
We care because productive use of capital create income that is taxed, that pays for things like healthcare, social services, etc.
Could we live with less productive capital? Sure. It wouldn't be anywhere near as nice.
Re: If AI replaces workers, should it also pay taxes?
#997Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, that's incorrect. You appear to have made a basic error. Regulating dangerous things is part of the point of government. Please review the U.S. Constitution. The preamble of the U.S. Constitution literally states that part of its purpose is to..."promote the general Welfare."
That's not what they meant by "welfare".
There is over 250 years of legislative history indicating that regulating dangerous things is part of promoting the public welfare.
Literally, the First Congress made up almost entirely of Founding Fathers passed laws regulating dangerous things...
If you want to use a nonstandard definition to suit your own ideology you're free to do so but don't expect others to join you.
Re: If AI replaces workers, should it also pay taxes?
#998Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We’d have to end pretty much all those programs to run a minuscule basic income Isn't ending all those programs one of the core ideas of universal basic income? Instead of having a huge bureaucracy administering targeted social welfare you cut all the overhead and just pay everyone enough to exist, regardless of whether you actually need it. It'd still be more expensive, but giving people something dependable to fa…
Okay so let’s divide the US federal budget by the number of people. So $21k per person. Now what happens to the guy who needs dialysis. It costs $60k. Right now the federal government pays. Now it’s given him a third the cost back. He just dies?
He gets it on the healthcare like all developed nations.
Re: If AI replaces workers, should it also pay taxes?
#999Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find it ironic that individual income tax is a thing in USA, but as soon as AI does the work, oh only the owner has to pay. As a libertarian, I find the whole requirement for workers to secure an accountant and file individual income taxes under threat of retaliation silly. Individuals should be free to engage in activities like working for an employer, taking care of their kids or aging parents, or having sex, wit…
>Taxes should be levied on companies and robots, not humans doing everyday things. This is also a slippery slope. As slippery as taxing individuals, property etc.
I for one am ready to tax our robotic replacement workers
Re: If AI replaces workers, should it also pay taxes?
#1000Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Taxes should be levied on companies and robots, not humans doing everyday things. This is also a slippery slope. As slippery as taxing individuals, property etc.
I for one am ready to tax our robotic replacement workers
If you are a libertarian and you have give it some thought - the correct amount of taxation is zero on all fronts. Every time you give power to the govt to tax you (or the robots you make) you are dissolving the freedom you process.
( It's another large conversation as to the best ways to sustain the govt)