3 ms·

He's talking about a scenario where 40% is unemployed due to automation, that's pretty apocalyptic. If that can be dealt with pretty well with only a 2.5x raise

He's talking about a scenario where 40% is unemployed due to automation, that's pretty apocalyptic. If that can be dealt with pretty well with only a 2.5x raise in tax levels, that sounds good to me.

sokoloff 10y ago
Taking federal taxes to 2.5x their current levels takes the top marginal rate over 100%, and that's before any state or local taxes are added. Mathematically, that makes no sense.
- snuxoll 10y ago
  Increasing tax on company profits is the more likely way of going about this instead of targeting the income tax specifically. This whole theory hinges on automation taking a significant bite out of the workforce, which will raise profits in direct proportion to lower costs. If companies aren't paying their employees anymore, a portion of their proceeds should go to paying back society as a whole - after all, if there's nobody to buy their product then they are dead as a company.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Taking federal taxes to 2.5x their current levels takes the top marginal rate over 100%, You are confusing "federal taxes" with "federal income taxes" and assuming the only way to increase the latter is to multiply the existing marginal rates without changing the structure; since a one portion of the drive for UBI is to address concentration of returns in high-end income and capital gains, the natural first thing to do is to uncap payroll/self-employment taxes and tax capital income the same as labor income (both the taxes on labor income styled as "income tax" and those styled as "payroll tax". That -- alone -- more than doubles taxes on long-term capital gains.) There's also other income that excluded from taxation or taxed favorably that is concentrated at the high-end that could be targetted.
- Scarblac 10y ago
  If fewer and fewer people work, it makes sense to tax other things than income from work. Like capital gains.

He's talking about a scenario where 40% is unemployed due to automation, that's pretty apocalyptic. If that can be dealt with pretty well with only a 2.5x raise in tax levels, that sounds good to me.

sokoloff 10y ago

Taking federal taxes to 2.5x their current levels takes the top marginal rate over 100%, and that's before any state or local taxes are added. Mathematically, that makes no sense.

snuxoll 10y ago
Increasing tax on company profits is the more likely way of going about this instead of targeting the income tax specifically. This whole theory hinges on automation taking a significant bite out of the workforce, which will raise profits in direct proportion to lower costs. If companies aren't paying their employees anymore, a portion of their proceeds should go to paying back society as a whole - after all, if there's nobody to buy their product then they are dead as a company.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> Taking federal taxes to 2.5x their current levels takes the top marginal rate over 100%, You are confusing "federal taxes" with "federal income taxes" and assuming the only way to increase the latter is to multiply the existing marginal rates without changing the structure; since a one portion of the drive for UBI is to address concentration of returns in high-end income and capital gains, the natural first thing to do is to uncap payroll/self-employment taxes and tax capital income the same as labor income (both the taxes on labor income styled as "income tax" and those styled as "payroll tax". That -- alone -- more than doubles taxes on long-term capital gains.) There's also other income that excluded from taxation or taxed favorably that is concentrated at the high-end that could be targetted.
Scarblac 10y ago
If fewer and fewer people work, it makes sense to tax other things than income from work. Like capital gains.