4 ms·
> that most any job that can be given to a machine will be, and that machines’ capabilities are improving by the day. Automation tax. If employment, payroll an
by rrggrr 9y ago
> that most any job that can be given to a machine will be, and that machines’ capabilities are improving by the day.
Automation tax. If employment, payroll and healthcare taxes are justified for the employment of people, than why shouldn't there be taxes levied on automation? Given the impact automation has on employment and wages, isn't a countervailing tax on automation a necessity?
- neon_electro 9y agoHow do you tax automation? How do you ensure you don't stifle its development? Shouldn't we be focusing on distributing the fruits of automation as widely as possible?
- maxerickson 9y agoA VAT.
- rrggrr 9y agoCorrect, a Value Added Tax. It may be necessary to levy additional taxes on high employment businesses hurt by automation (eg. Transportation). The responsible thing to do would be to tightly earmark the proceeds, and to have the taxes sunset, requiring a 2/3 majority to renew, after 10 years.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- ThomPete 9y agoYou wouldn't be taxing automation but rather the output of automation.
- eduren 9y ago>Shouldn't we be focusing on distributing the fruits of automation as widely as possible? Is that not something that taxation would provide?
- dragonwriter 9y ago> How do you tax automation? You start by just taxing income equally, rather than having extra-heavy taxes on labor income like we do now. Right now, we tax-prefer automation and replacement of labor with capital.
- maxxxxx 9y agoI think tax policy could be defined in a way that favors employment. Right now it's almost the opposite.
- wvenable 9y agoWhy would society want a tax policy that favors human labor over machine labor? We want the machines to take over but we all want to be sipping Mai Tais on the beach while it happens.
- kbenson 9y agoPossibly because people with more time than responsibilities to fill that time often end up stirring things up, especially when in close proximity to each other. Just look at college. Society does place a premium on stability, so too much of this might not be a good thing.
- and0 9y agoA lot of students are pretty busy. And what are these horrors of college dorm life you're speaking of? Aside from campus rape, of course, but that doesn't seem to be a result of idleness.
- kbenson 9y agoProtests, activism, etc. I'm not saying it's bad, just that a lot of calls for change happen when people are less occupied by putting food on the sable for themselves and their family. Change may be good or bad, but a lot of change, all at once, often has very negative short term consequences for most people, and there's no guarantee that with these negative consequences it's a better path than a slower change. Civil wars are examples of fairly negative consequences of massive change in a short time. I imagine there's likely a certain level of population that are activists under which a society is fairly stable, and over which makes society fairly unstable (possibly altered by the vehemence of belief). Personally, I would rather live in a more stable society with a good amount of activism for change (hopefully for the better) than in a society tearing itself apart.
- reustle 9y agoHow do you decide what is and isn't automation? Are the small factories of today filled with automation? Is my local apple orchards conveyer system to move apples from one side of the building to the other automation?