4 ms·
The simplest solution is an automation tax which is revenue neutral. Any time automation moves in to an industry, the tax's revenues can be used to help transit
by WhompingWindows 8y ago
The simplest solution is an automation tax which is revenue neutral. Any time automation moves in to an industry, the tax's revenues can be used to help transition those workers into other work, or give them at least an automation relief stipend.
If we don't tax automation, what's to stop increasingly cheaper automation from replacing increasingly expensive first world workers? Especially when businesses are expected to increase salaries yearly, provide expensive benefits like healthcare - businesses would rather pay up-front for automation.
- andrei_says_ 8y agoI am wondering, why wouldn’t this logic apply to outsourcing, too?
- hinkley 8y agoAnother solution is to claw back mineral rights by taxing raw materials. You burn the sky, take the water, dig in the ground, that is something the citizens don’t get to use. You owe them. The thing I like about this (its not my model but it’s my favorite) is that it happens at the input side so it codifies the idea of Reduce Reuse Recycle by setting a base cost where it’s cheaper to recycle and purify than it is to use virgin materials.
- gremlinsinc 8y agoI like this idea, as long as it extends to all land use. So, people renting from others are actually receiving a dividend from the landlord, for the utility of owning that land. I've read that land/material-based taxes instead of income-based could raise enough to fund a GBI, and be sort of organized like Alaska's oil fund.
- hinkley 8y agoProperty taxes are a thing already. It funds infrastructure which we all need more when we are employed, but we all need it anyway.