2 ms·
That would be raising taxes. - indifferent to how much automation you have, people still need to pay for it, for money they don't earn.
by tossandthrow 1y ago
That would be raising taxes.
- indifferent to how much automation you have, people still need to pay for it, for money they don't earn.
- littlestymaar 1y agoWhen people refer to “raise taxes” they usually talk about raising the rates, but you don't need to raise rates, if the GDP increase then the amount collected through taxes increases even if you don't change the rate. And as such, it feels like labelling that “raise taxes” is disingenuous.
- tossandthrow 1y agoExactly, another way to increase taxes is also by increasing gdp. Indeed the normal Understanding is not only about increasing rates - look at Switzerland eg.
- littlestymaar 1y agoI'd you really wanted to fit this square peg into your artificial triangle hole, I'd argue that in practice this is closer to “lowering benefits” than to “raise taxes” since the purchasing power of the retired would decline compare to the population average. But again, there's no basis to chose just your three items in particular.
- tossandthrow 1y agoThis is not fitting anything into anywhere. This is how economists think about.
- littlestymaar 1y agoEconomists working on pensions think about productivity a lot, and they don't bundle that in your “raise taxes” category.
- StackRanker3000 1y agoAutomation and increased productivity can also lower the cost of necessities such as food and health care, meaning retired people could theoretically get by with less.
- tossandthrow 1y agoNo. A part of necessities are access to assets. In the model you propose, inequality in itself will make those more expensive.