4 ms·

Easy. Glowing eyes = robot. Special rule also applies for Tricia Helfer-type robots, that only occasionally and inexplicably glows, and then in a sinister way.

by kpil 10y ago

Easy. Glowing eyes = robot. Special rule also applies for Tricia Helfer-type robots, that only occasionally and inexplicably glows, and then in a sinister way. R2-robots are exempt, as they just beeps annoyingly while getting lost. The thought that you could tax software for the performed labour is new to me, but why not. As the way it is sort-of implied in the text - requiring some sort of mechanical implementation in addition to software, it will probably slow down development of robotics in EU, which is currently the only way we can compete with slave labour^H^H^H^H low-income economies.

visarga 10y ago
> you could tax software for the performed labour Or you could issue new money and put it in circulation as BHI. That way the money hoarders and robot beneficiaries can't hide their money. Also tax all other values such as properties and shares, so they can't hide the value of their wealth by converting it into something else. The issue with automation owners is that they want to get money for their products while not hiring people. Thus the cycle of money is broken. Money should circulate like water in nature, not accumulate in some place from where it can't escape. The automation owners should support BHI otherwise who's going to buy their products? They are going to be hit too when demand falls. If you think from a game theory point of view, the automation owners should accept a loss in order to keep the system working, otherwise they have to take an even bigger loss. But they would prefer other people pay their taxes while they escape (so they lobby for advantages in law), a move based on greed - even though if everyone would do that it would mean they all lose. Similar to the tragedy of commons.
ragebol 10y ago
An automation tax will reduce the inequality between owners of capital, who can buy robots, and those who cannot. I think that's a positive thing. The tax level should strike a balance that makes it worthwhile to automate something but the downsides (inequality) can be counteracted by the tax still. Ideally, the same applies to tax on gasoline, smoking etc.
- duality 10y ago
  I would wage that there's no obvious distinction between an automation tax applied to "robots" and to any computers, industrial or agricultural equipment, automobiles (I'm not paying a horse breeder, or paying people to carry my litter or rickshaw around, am I?), etc. So, would you propose we impose a penalty tax on all machine capable of doing a job that people could also do?
  - ragebol 10y ago
    Perhaps. Imagine how much less we'd all have to work and still have enough money to live, if part of our livelihood was payed by robots.
- kpil 10y ago
  Since I just read that eight men own half of the capital in the world, I tend to agree. Eight!
  - megous 10y ago
    You should read again.
    - kpil 10y ago
      OK. I did. Just 8 men own same wealth as half the world. EIGHT!
- edblarney 10y ago
  "An automation tax will reduce the inequality between owners of capital, who can buy robots, and those who cannot. " It's an utterly and completely absurd idea. There is no such thing as a 'robot automaton' for the most part anyhow. Do you know Starbucks started using machines to make Capuccinos instead of having the baristas do the full work. Does that count as a robot? Does the new accounting software that requires less human input count as a robot? Do the police traffic cameras count as robots? What about airlines that used to have 4 crew in the cockpit but now only 2 due to advances in navigation? Or the specialized 'domain search' tools for professions that save 1/2 their search time and therefore law/medical firms require less staffers? Or the automated ticketing booths at the Airport? Or the upgraded baggage handling machine that works twice as fast and requires less humans moving luggage? Or the advanced comms/radar that means greater safety and 1/2 the air traffic control staff? Can you imagine the legal hangaring over what constitutes 'automation'? And the lawsuits? And the cost? This is part of the reason that the EU is in many ways a complete disaster. How utterly stupid. There's an article today about France trying to recruit startups. The moment you hire a few people, and use online services to do your taxes, instead of doing them yourself - do you have to 'assess' your workplace as having an 'automation' upgrade and then pay more taxes? It's fantastically Orwellian.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

by kpil 10y ago

visarga 10y ago

> you could tax software for the performed labour Or you could issue new money and put it in circulation as BHI. That way the money hoarders and robot beneficiaries can't hide their money. Also tax all other values such as properties and shares, so they can't hide the value of their wealth by converting it into something else. The issue with automation owners is that they want to get money for their products while not hiring people. Thus the cycle of money is broken. Money should circulate like water in nature, not accumulate in some place from where it can't escape. The automation owners should support BHI otherwise who's going to buy their products? They are going to be hit too when demand falls. If you think from a game theory point of view, the automation owners should accept a loss in order to keep the system working, otherwise they have to take an even bigger loss. But they would prefer other people pay their taxes while they escape (so they lobby for advantages in law), a move based on greed - even though if everyone would do that it would mean they all lose. Similar to the tragedy of commons.

ragebol 10y ago

An automation tax will reduce the inequality between owners of capital, who can buy robots, and those who cannot. I think that's a positive thing. The tax level should strike a balance that makes it worthwhile to automate something but the downsides (inequality) can be counteracted by the tax still. Ideally, the same applies to tax on gasoline, smoking etc.

duality 10y ago
I would wage that there's no obvious distinction between an automation tax applied to "robots" and to any computers, industrial or agricultural equipment, automobiles (I'm not paying a horse breeder, or paying people to carry my litter or rickshaw around, am I?), etc. So, would you propose we impose a penalty tax on all machine capable of doing a job that people could also do?
- ragebol 10y ago
  Perhaps. Imagine how much less we'd all have to work and still have enough money to live, if part of our livelihood was payed by robots.
kpil 10y ago
Since I just read that eight men own half of the capital in the world, I tend to agree. Eight!
- megous 10y ago
  You should read again.
  - kpil 10y ago
    OK. I did. Just 8 men own same wealth as half the world. EIGHT!
edblarney 10y ago
"An automation tax will reduce the inequality between owners of capital, who can buy robots, and those who cannot. " It's an utterly and completely absurd idea. There is no such thing as a 'robot automaton' for the most part anyhow. Do you know Starbucks started using machines to make Capuccinos instead of having the baristas do the full work. Does that count as a robot? Does the new accounting software that requires less human input count as a robot? Do the police traffic cameras count as robots? What about airlines that used to have 4 crew in the cockpit but now only 2 due to advances in navigation? Or the specialized 'domain search' tools for professions that save 1/2 their search time and therefore law/medical firms require less staffers? Or the automated ticketing booths at the Airport? Or the upgraded baggage handling machine that works twice as fast and requires less humans moving luggage? Or the advanced comms/radar that means greater safety and 1/2 the air traffic control staff? Can you imagine the legal hangaring over what constitutes 'automation'? And the lawsuits? And the cost? This is part of the reason that the EU is in many ways a complete disaster. How utterly stupid. There's an article today about France trying to recruit startups. The moment you hire a few people, and use online services to do your taxes, instead of doing them yourself - do you have to 'assess' your workplace as having an 'automation' upgrade and then pay more taxes? It's fantastically Orwellian.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]