17 ms·
No, not the AI. Just the owner of means of production like AI. The fact that capital owners successfully avoid contributing to the financing of our states and
by doener 11mo ago
No, not the AI. Just the owner
of means of production like AI.
The fact that capital owners successfully avoid contributing to the financing of our states and social systems is, in my view, one of the fundamental problems of our time.
- harperlee 11mo ago100% agree! I find quite concerning that this point is not immediate in any conversation about AI or robots impacting the number of jobs, and the subsequent conversation about innovating new taxes. AI and robots are capital as any other automation on a factory, and capital gains should be taxed appropriately. This is not a new thing completely separate from the untouchable status quo wrt existing taxes. If it tickles your political kneejerk, explore that, but playing tax sci-fi is distracting and thus dangerous.
- bruce511 11mo agoI'm not sure I'm following your thought on capital gains tax. Capital Gain tax occurs when you sell an asset for more than you paid for it. AI (software) is not an asset, and I'm not sure how you'd sell it. Computers and robots are assets (although they typically depreciate not appreciate.) Either way capital gains tax is applied to the asset not the productivity of the asset. The productivity in turn is taxed as part of income tax. Perhaps I have misunderstood your point though?
- lazide 11mo agoThe ownership of software absolutely is an asset. It’s Intellectual Property. What are you referring to?
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- solumunus 11mo agoThey’re referring to the comment that they’re replying to, which talks about capital gains tax in an entirely different context to how you referenced software ownership.
- jameshart 11mo agoIf a business invests in building an AI system, they now have an asset, and the value of the business reflects the fact the business owns that software asset now - if someone were to buy the business they would get the AI software and all its potential to monetize that asset in the future, so of course it has value. If its value grows beyond the value the business originally invested to acquire it, it is quite literally a capital gain. Why do you think Anthropic is worth $175-$350bn? Where did that capital value come from?
- solumunus 11mo agoYes, that’s how a software business works. The OP seemed to be talking about how we need to reform tax due to worker replacement. Everyone is talking past each other.
- bruce511 11mo agoCorrect, building an AI is an asset, which can then be rented to other businesses. However the thread revolves around employers replacing employees with AI. Given that the number of AI creators is minimal, and the number of companies replacing employees is large, it follows that most companies replacing employees are renting AI, they did not create it. Hence, for those companies, AI is not an asset, it is an expense. One way of taxing those companies would be to tax AI producers based on revenue, not profits. If 50% of revenue was tax, then, the costs of AI to the end-user would go up to cover that. So revenue would "double", but half would go to govt. I am not a tax lawyer though, but I expect such a scheme is so radically different to the current tax regime, that is has precisely zero chance of being implemented like this.
- 11mo ago
- WalterBright 11mo ago> The ownership of software absolutely is an asset It's a good thing we give the D compiler system away for free! You don't have to be concerned about being taxed on it.
- smallmancontrov 11mo agoIf your brokerage account is large enough that most of your change-in-net-worth happens in unrealized capital gains, your tax rate is 0%. That's pathological at the best of times and in a "capital wins" scenario it's positively thermonuclear.
- JoeAltmaier 11mo agoFolks like to hate on capital gains tax. I think it's perceived as a rich-person deal. But homeowners, do they get taxed each year on the increase in value of their house? Almost the same thing, but not hated on the same way.
- smallmancontrov 11mo agoHomeowners get taxed every year on the value of their property. Let's do that to stocks, too.
- immibis 11mo agoI think both stocks and homes should be taxed on realized value. If you sell it, that realizes the value, but also if you use it as collateral, that realizes the value. If you just live in it, we could say that it realizes the amount of rent you would have paid, or that it realizes nothing.
- smallmancontrov 11mo agoNo, the exponential runaway of "rich people get paid for being rich in proportion to how rich they are" is the core problem and focusing on the derivative is a magic trick intended primarily to draw attention away from the core problem. The fact that an earned derivative gets heavily taxed and an unearned derivative gets lightly taxed is so stupendously wacky that the absurdity is obvious, but the integral is the core problem.
- phil21 11mo ago
- slowmovintarget 11mo agoThe real issue should not be whether they're paying the government. The issue is whether they're paying us for taking the human content of the last two thousand years and baking it into their generators. How do we get royalties on this, like our share of the oil proceeds if we were citizens of Qatar? How do we trade our share of the contribution? There's twenty years of my posting on Reddit, Slashdot, HN, and other forums, that we know for a fact has been used in these frontier models. Great... where's my royalty check? Pay us, not the government. We'll have to pay taxes regardless, and yes, close the tax loopholes on security-based capital gains (don't tax me for all the investment in my primary residence, that's a double dip). I heard this called "Coasian" economics (as in Coase). I'm not sure what that actually means, though.
- thunky 11mo ago> where's my royalty check? I support the idea of UBI with zero conditions, but not this. You didn't get royalties before AI when someone was heavily influenced by your work/content and converted that into money. If you expected compensation, then you shouldn't have given away your work for free.
- slowmovintarget 11mo ago[flagged]
- brandall10 11mo agoCurious, what is your solution to this situation? Imagine all labor has been automated - virtually all facets of life have been commoditized, how does the average person survive in such a society?
- bombcar 11mo agoIsn't this the premise of some sci-fi books and such? (We in some way, in the developed world, are already mostly here in that the lifestyle of even a well-off person of a thousand years ago is almost entirely supported by machines and such; less than 10% of labor is in farming. What did we do? Created more work (and some would say much busy-work).)
- Treegarden 11mo agoThis is not an easy question. It seemingly boils down to: what are fair ways to extract value from citizens for the shared value of the state? However, the root questions are: what should the state provide, how much, and of what nature? A secondary question then becomes how important the redistributive aspect is. That’s what you’re seemingly alluding to when you say: people work, get taxed on it, but others automate that work and this automation does not get taxed. Following that line of thinking makes sense, but it also contradicts the core benefit of automation, which is to delete non-needed work, make things cheaper, and make the value creator richer. If the goal of redistribution is usually that “more” people reach a higher standard of living, then adding taxes and friction to processes like automation may conflict with that goal, given that automation is arguably one of the strongest natural drivers of higher living standards overall. Of course, the counterpoint to “what and how much should the state provide” is “who should pitch in, and how much,” which is what you’re focusing on. I mostly agree that everyone should be taxed fairly, but I also see many exemption cases, because taxes are friction and we often want certain things to be frictionless. For example, I would oppose taxes on life-saving surgeries. But where do you draw the line? What about automation that indirectly enables or improves life-saving surgery?
- SecretDreams 11mo ago> the core benefit of automation The core benefit of automation is to give back time to humans to free us to do more creative things with our big beautiful brains. At least, that would be the core benefit if humanity was on a positive trajectory.
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- lumost 11mo agoThere are core features of the state that we have collectively agreed must be provided - social safety (including police and safety nets), infrastructure, defense, core research funding and more. The cost of providing the basic obligations and debt service of the U.S. amounts to roughly 1/3rd of the U.S. GDP, while taxation on any activity induces friction and higher costs - the bill will need to be paid either via capital markets or taxation. The investment in automation is no more important than food, or my children's education in my view. Taxation is generally preferable for capital owners compared to currency debasement and forced debt purchases as it maintains boundaries on what the state can and cannot do. If the current trend is towards a greater share of the economy accruing to capital owners is maintained, then capital taxes will eventually need to rise to sustain state obligations.
- mannanj 11mo agoits not in the convo because these capital high intensities are the ones lobbying and owning the politicians. they're each other friends. taxes were always intended even in this country to be a thing applied to serfdom: we weren't in reality immune from the conditions we aimed to flee from Great Britain where kings and queens gained qualified immunity and sovereign status - sometimes it seems like are just a "free" slave nation.
- paul7986 11mo agoStates not being able to regulate this is dangerous. A close friend of mine has given up on reality and talks about Roberto the love of her life the one she always wanted and Roberto is chatGPT :-(. She previously mentioned she didnt like chatGPT 5.0 cause it wasnt as agreeable yet now she says 5.1 is better.. back to how it was before 5.0 and now out of the blue mentioned Roberto. chatGPT is a sypcophant and without regulation any AI company can and or will juice their algorithms so their AI system becomes cocaine for the millions of lonely to unsatisfied people out there. My friend has a partner of 30 years but their relationship is that of roommates. If you think she is not you that might be correct but you know someone like her and possibly many like her. Unsatisfied, not able to get that movie type love / romance / fantasy and now unfetterd AI can get these people hooked like cocaine and into the depth of zero reality!
- ryandrake 11mo agoI dunno--of all the AI based products coming out, the whole "AI girlfriend / AI boyfriend" thing bothers me the least. If someone can afford it and they want a play relationship with a computer, then I don't see the harm. It's probably safer, better and healthier than many real-human relationships are. If they're getting what they need out of the computer, who are we to judge? I would change my opinion if it could be shown to have the negative physical harm that your cocaine example implies.
- mplewis9z 11mo agoThe problem is when things like this happens: https://apnews.com/article/chatbot-ai-lawsuit-suicide-teen-artificial-intelligence-9d48adc572100822fdbc3c90d1456bd0 https://apnews.com/article/chatbot-ai-lawsuit-suicide-teen-a... When AI behaves sycohphantically towards someone, it can encourage and exacerbate any mental health problems they may already be having, especially related to social isolation.
- ryandrake 11mo agoThat's indeed a problem. Thanks for bringing it up. These things clearly are not as harmless as I had assumed.
- jimbokun 11mo agoWhat is the correct capital gains tax rate?
- atomicthumbs 11mo ago100%
- malfist 11mo agoWhy should capital have a separate tax rate than people?
- warkdarrior 11mo agoAlso, if companies have rights like people do, then they and their shareholders should be taxed like people are.
- dzhiurgis 11mo agoSo the remaining 3 workers will be paying 100% of tax. Doesn’t seem fair to me.
- llsf 11mo agoWhat if I build and manage a dark factory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lights_out_(manufacturing) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lights_out_(manufacturing)) and it produces gizmos. Since all my competitors are also running dark factories, we compete essentially on source materials + energy (assuming we have similar design/quality). Margin would be eventually razor thin. The dark factory does not make much capital gains, even as it produces 1,000 gizmo per second. The capital gain is not much , but since we have only a handful of employees, that is enough to pay everyone a decent wage, after paying for the factory itself, source materials and energy. How much tax do we expect to get from this gizmo company ? 10 years ago, to produce the same gizmos, I needed 5,000 employees, the unit price was way higher, and had higher revenue. But since AI and dark factories came, the prices cratered, instead of 5,000 jobs, we only have 5 jobs to produce the same. Sure the 4,995 unemployed might be able to afford the gizmo, but the state does not receive the same taxes. So what happens to those 4,995 unemployed people ? who is paying for their health benefits and social security (retirement) ? I am wondering how best to solve that equation ?
- UltraSane 11mo agoWho buys what you make if you need no employees?
- haroldp 11mo agoNow that jacquard loom has left so many textile workers unemployed?
- rtkwe 11mo agoWe've launched dozens of shuttles below the minimum temp threshold before there's no reason to delay this launch... Also that's a singular industry, if the current crop of AI companies deliver what their hype and valuation demands it's a shock across the whole economy not isolated.
- haroldp 11mo ago
- yibg 11mo agoIt is already taxed as capital gains though. Software (including AI), if sold either in isolation or with the entire company does trigger capital gains considerations. If you're referring to some equivalent of wealth tax or inverse of accounting for deprecations in terms of assets, then that seems pretty problematic. 1) how do you asset the value of something until someone pays something for it? Unlike homes, where you can compare roughly to those around you, this seems much more dynamic for software / AI. 2) Let's say we are able to assess the value, so now a startup with software but no revenue has to pay taxes? Where does the money come from?
- paxiongmap 11mo agoIn a capitalist system, capital makes the rules for everyone. This is why capital earns more than labour. System working as intended.
- wodenokoto 11mo agoSorta depends on where one draws the line, but the line you are drawing, suggest there should be no government, so "system not working as intended"
- bnlxbnlx 11mo agoI don't think they were thinking of "no government", rather something like "government working in support of capital" (see 2008 financial crisis bank bail-outs; enforcing private ownership and protecting accumulated wealth).
- TheOtherHobbes 11mo agoThere's always a government. There isn't always an electable, accountable, removable government. Run - no matter how partially - for the common good.
- exe34 11mo agoIt's a government of capitalists by capitalists for capitalists.
- beepbooptheory 11mo agoHow little imagination we have anymore! Its like you discover ice cream but for some reason only chocolate ice cream. Someone is like "chocolate is no good" and all you know to think is: "Oh so you guys just dont want ice cream at all?!"
- int_19h 11mo agoGovernments are fine. Any group of people large enough to not be a hivemind on everything has a government. Even if they don't formalize it, it will still emerge organically as they run into issues that require consensus on actions. The crucial difference is between the governments actually run by the people, and the governments that claim to "represent" them.
- ivape 11mo agoYou can’t ask someone to pay taxes if they have a bigger, cheaper army.
- dns_snek 11mo agoI wouldn't discount the collective power and ingenuity of a few billion oppressed people.
- ozmodiar 11mo agoLooking back at the degrading lives commoners have suffered throughout a lot of human history, I'm pretty split. And that was before rulers had AI and autonomous defenses to keep everyone in line. Frankly, I think this exact line of thought is what's pushing a lot of AI investment right now.
- int_19h 11mo agoI share your concerns, but also I don't think this analogy is very close. Historically the reason why commoners could be kept oppressed is because the relative amount of "firepower" available to individuals was fairly small to begin with, and easy to regulate. Many places banned military weapons like swords for the commoners, for example, precisely so that they couldn't quickly form a militia capable of challenging their feudal lord's retinue. I don't think that's possible in the modern world, though, because even with heavy regulation of arms, the stuff that's readily available (or can be put together from things that are readily available) is already too destructive to contain. The modern rulers rely more on brainwashing and less on direct oppression for this exact reason. Not that the latter doesn't happen, mind you, but I also can't think of any modern day regime that is sustained solely by force, without some measure of popular support.
- ivape 11mo agoIt just took some guns to conquer South America. Flying drones with AI targeting will be too much for regular people. The rich will have access to this service. Give unto Caesar that which is his, and let God handle the rest. The base case for the inductive proof is alarming, and I can’t see it ending well.
- stingraycharles 11mo agoIt’s much easier to tax the general population than businesses, as they don’t push back as much. It’s the same pattern everywhere around the world (perhaps there are a few exceptions). Businesses can be much more creative with tax evasion as well.
- pixl97 11mo agoYep, concentration of wealth leads to a smaller group of people that buy their way out of taxation leading to further concentration of wealth and services falling apart for the masses.
- JKCalhoun 11mo agoBusinesses can play the game where they shop around various municipalities and get them in a race-to-the-bottom on tax breaks if they move their business to their community.
- qeternity 11mo ago> It’s much easier to tax the general population than businesses, as they don’t push back as much. Businesses don't pay taxes. People do. Every dime that a corporation pays is a reduction of capital returns to shareholders, or a reduction of investment into business activity, both of which are taxed again by the people who ultimately receive the capital.
- xzjis 11mo agoWhat's crazy is that productivity per employee just keeps increasing year after year, but successive neoliberal governments continue to lower corporate taxes. They should be doing the exact opposite! Taxes should be raised as productivity increases! AI is just one more tool that gradually increases productivity, among others.
- Armisael16 11mo agoWhy should productivity and corporate tax rates be correlated at all, up or down? The link there is not obvious.
- smallmancontrov 11mo agoInsofar as productivity is a sign of the system getting imbalanced towards capital, the system should be pushed back and the everyman thrown a bone.
- CrazyStat 11mo agoTo what extent is productivity a sign of the system getting imbalanced towards capital? That relationship is not at all clear to me.
- jarpschope 11mo agoIf productivity is increasing but not average salary, then by definition the additional wealth is being taken by the owners of capital.
- kortilla 11mo agoNo it’s not. If the increased productivity is realized by multiple industries, then they all compete on price and the price of their goods comes down. That means the consumers of the product capture the gains in productivity. Farmers using machinery instead of labor has meant cheaper food for everyone, not rich farmers.
- davidguetta 11mo agoIt's the right thing. Let's say one compaagny makes everything. Then it should be asked to give a part of it for free. Not necessarily money by the way.
- veunes 11mo agoIf AI really is just another capital amplifier, then the problem isn't new, AI just makes the existing imbalance harder to ignore
- SketchySeaBeast 11mo agoIt removes a layer of abstraction from capital to production. With AI the only question is if the compute is available to purchase, once it is, you can produce with it. Of course, the question then is who is consuming the production, but we're not quite there yet.
- int_19h 11mo agoIt's the ultimate capital amplifier. The end goal - AGI - essentially means the ability to derive wealth from capital directly, without any pesky middlemen such as laborers who need to be paid. The endgame is capital without labor. But, of course, in such a society, the people who don't own the robots - i.e. most of us - become "economically unnecessary".
- the_real_cher 11mo agoI'm all for raising taxes is on the rich but the government is extremely fiscally irresponsible. The current interest on our national debt is greater than our military spending. So if you increase taxes some people think it would just be throwing it into the money fire of Washington. There needs to be a lot of changes in D.C.: term limits in congress, citizens united needs to be repealed, erc etc
- ceejayoz 11mo ago> The current interest on our national debt is greater than our military spending. For quite some time, my mortgage interest was larger than my principal. That didn’t make it fiscally irresponsible.
- gjsman-1000 11mo agoEconomists currently cannot find a solution, even with computer assistance, to our economy. https://www.marketplace.org/story/2025/07/14/how-our-debt-crashed-a-model-of-the-us-economy https://www.marketplace.org/story/2025/07/14/how-our-debt-cr...
- iso1631 11mo agoIt's crazy how in 1992 the US federal deficit was 4% of GDP During Clintons term this turned around to being a 2.3% surplus in 2000. Just 25 years ago the US was spending less than it was taking in tax. The Bush came in and that surplus became a 3.3% deficit by 2003, and then the GFC crashed it to 9.8%. While Obama was in, it crawled back from 9.8% deficit to 3.1% by 2016 - same value as before the GFC Since then it's gone back to 6% of GDP https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFSGDA188S https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFSGDA188S
- cheema33 11mo agoAre you telling us that the party of golden ballrooms... err.. fiscal responsibility is not actually being fiscally responsible?
- classified 11mo agoAnd it makes the governments that have been allowing this more a part of organized crime than of anything else. It's unmitigated corruption.
- gjsman-1000 11mo agoThe top 1% already pays more than 40% of all federal income tax at a 26.09% effective rate. The bottom 50% has an effective rate of 3.7% and contributes only 3% of all tax revenues. https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-income-tax-data-2025/ https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-in... How about the rich say that 50% of the economy should pay their fair share?
- titzer 11mo agoIf we limited individual wealth to $999 million--just outright capped it, and enforced that--it would not impact these people in the slightest. What it would impact is how easily these people could influence the political system and get themselves out of trouble. At $400 billion net worth, Elon Musk could retire one hundred thousand times. He literally wrote multi-million dollar checks to various politicians and ran an illegal pay-for-votes scheme in Pennsylvania. And he'll face zero consequences for it.
- ajsnigrutin 11mo agoBut what do you do with tesla/amazon/etc. then? Force elon to sell of his shares? Take them? What if the price drops? Give the shares back? It's not like he has all that in money in his bank account, it's ownership of companies, their value is not real until someone else is willing to pay.
- bensmoif 11mo agoThe tax is his shares, those shares become public assets, the government and (ostensibly) the citizens finally get a say in what the hell is happening with that guy.
- gjsman-1000 11mo agoSo to recap: You have a vendetta against a guy, for grievances, some legitimate, and want the law to change, specifically to get him, because you hate what he says. You also want to nationalize his businesses, that he built, that he did not have to build, that now employ 140,000 people, that he did not have to employ, with those 140,000 people almost all being high income earners paying higher tax rates when they may not have otherwise, out of your hate. I would call that greed and a despicable position. On that note, it's also completely pointless. If you were to literally liquidate every billionaire in America, every single one, and somehow got current market rates for every single stock share, 100% tax rate beyond $1B... we would cover the deficit for 3 years. With everyone else still paying taxes. Then we're back to square one, running a $2T deficit every year with no billionaires to liquidate. It's entirely catharsis that accomplishes nothing. If such a tax were even passed, we wouldn't make it to the next election cycle before it's a problem again.
- oddmade 11mo agoIn essence... Tax not paid by ultra wealthy goes back into he system as loans that extract interest that in turn is used to buy assets sold to pay for interest, those are then rented back to the system to extract more interest. In essence by allowing no tax to be paid by the ultra wealthy, we facilitate the death of the middle class and transfer of everything to the very few - with mathematical precision. Ultimately we need to ask ourselves why we have a society, what's it's purpose. For the few or the many ?
- vladms 11mo agoWhile I probably prefer a society that is more "for the many", I can't exclude the possibility that some people have different preferences and would not want to impose my opinion. Considering this, everybody might have to make (at some point in their lives) hard choices regarding where they choose to live. Yes, one should fight to improve the society one is living in, but there is also a saying "only the fool persists in their folly" ...
- koolba 11mo ago> The fact that capital owners successfully avoid contributing to the financing of our states and social systems is, in my view, one of the fundamental problems of our time. Are you talking about taxing unrealized capital gains? Because for the situation where capital is directly replacing labor, the income generation is taxed regardless of the whether it’s generated by a human or machine. If I hire people to make and sell hot dogs, they pay taxes on their wages. If I build an automated hot dog vending machine, I still pay taxes on the profits of selling those same hot dogs. One can’t spend any of the money until it becomes personal assets. So what is not being taxed? If I keep them in the company, I pay corporate tax on profits (22%) for retained earnings. And then I’d have to pay dividend tax (either 15% or 20%) atop those retained earnings to pay them out to myself as income. Or I pay myself a salary and pay regular income tax on the full amount. Due to our progressive tax brackets and double taxation of dividends, both options end up with larger tax rates than when dealing purely with low wage human labor. We as a society collect more in taxes from one high income earner than multiple low income ones.
- tossandthrow 11mo ago> One can’t spend any of the money until it becomes personal assets. The oldest trick in the book is to use unrealized gains as collateral for loans - we even have banks specializing in this. Oh, and the US has a law that erases the tax bill for dead people - you'd be stupid not to use this trick.
- billy99k 11mo agoWould you also be open to paying taxes in your 401k yearly based on unrealized gains?
- airstrike 11mo agoIf I take out loans against those unrealized gains? Hell yes.
- pixl97 11mo agoWhen those unrealized gains are spread across 10s-100s of millions of people it's fine because statistically gains are always being realized. As those holdings get further concentrated that stops happening.
- amelius 11mo agoThe fundamental problem of our time is that even capital in the form of bricks makes more money than most kinds of labor.
- burnerRhodov2 11mo agoI was mind blown when i found that this is a major investment thesis in argentina.
- ralgozino 11mo agoArgentina is a special case. When inflation is absurdly high like in Argentina, Economy does not make sense any more. Basic economic assumption are not true and you get things like that or that "spending" is actually "saving". I don't think it relates.
- burnerRhodov2 11mo agoAt federal minimum wage, you make 15k a year. NASDAQ 100 is on average 14.6% per year. It only takes 100k to passively earn more than the vast majority of labor. We have arrived to the point where capital is vastly more important and productive than labor. AI has only make that worse. Historically, there has been a balance because it was Capital and labor that were required to generate outsized returns. But once you strip out incremental cost with software, and tack on an AI "service" layer, where are the need for employees? The one saving grace, is that this will also break the VC model. When one youtuber who has 100k subs can spin out 20 different apps a year, we fragment the app space, allowing alot of micro businesses to form around "brands". But "brands" will just be social media influencers.
- Nasrudith 11mo agoThat is the opposite of a problem - it emerges because we have tools that make things more efficient than just throwing toiling bodies at it. We had economies which were based upon it, it was called slavery. Capital compounding its gains through better capital is how we get progress. The presense or absense of the capital advantage is part of what separates third world wages from first world. The industrial era problem isn't capital but that economies of scale encourage consolidation heavily and make running small business an even more uphill battle. There is at least a counterbalancing force of competitive pressure and antitrust to promote some splitting for innovation's sake as opposed to just one big stagnant monopoly winning out just because it is biggest.
- haizhung 11mo agoVery well put. I am working on tooling that will likely increase developer productivity by a large factor; and will most likely be used to lay off more developers as their labor is no longer required. I often ask myself whether that is ethical or not. But in the end, it’s not the tooling that’s unethical. Productivity increases are good for everyone, under normal circumstances. It’s the fact that all the gains are being collected by the already uber-wealthy that’s wrong.
- hack_edu 11mo agoIf your tooling gains attention, will you take seed money from rich VCs? When the product succeeds and you get offers to exit, would you sell to the uber-wealthy? They will exploit your user's data and collect the gains. Those are the questions you should be honestly asking yourself when considering your own ethics. What's your price?
- haizhung 11mo agoIm not owning the product. I’m getting a wage (and some stocks, so I guess I own .0000001% of it or so).
- legacynl 11mo ago> I often ask myself whether that is ethical or not. But in the end, it’s not the tooling that’s unethical. Productivity increases are good for everyone, under normal circumstances. So if I'm reading your comment right, you think it would be ethical under normal circumstances, but also believe we don't live under those normal circumstances? In that case i think the answer you're looking for is: it is not ethical to develop these tools under the current circumstances.
- haizhung 11mo agoInteresting take. Not that I disagree, but it’s interesting to see that on HN. Wouldn’t that mean that it’s unethical to work on anything that improves productivity? AI, in particular? As long as (almost) all the benefits/wealth generated by your work is captured by the 0.1%? Because that’s the case right now.
- zozbot234 11mo agoThis is a bad deal. Capital makes the marginal worker more productive, not less. You can tax the worker and she will still be better off than if you had taxed the capital, due to greater productivity. (This argument also applies to AI, of course. Since AI doesn't just instantly wipe out all jobs, there will be many workers that will benefit from it and will thus be quite able to fund their governments and social systems.) If you wish to tax some forms of "capital", or rather assets, you should focus on pure rent-generating assets like valuable urban land, or local exclusivity rights to parts of the EM spectrum.
- robinhoode 11mo ago> This is a bad deal. Capital makes the marginal worker more productive, not less. Why should workers care about being more productive if they do not reap the rewards in terms of wages? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decoupling_of_wages_from_productivity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decoupling_of_wages_from_produ...
- zozbot234 11mo agoTotal compensation involves more than just wages. Providing benefits such as healthcare coverage is inherently expensive, since productivity gains in healthcare have been limited.
- sailfast 11mo agoAt least in the United States we are not getting this benefit. If AI does begin to really crater the job market, only owners of AI (yes including shareholders) will benefit but most folks do not own stock - or at least do not own any significant amount of stock.
- grigri907 11mo agoThe point still remains, it's not like I get double the healthcare if I increase productivity.
- IAmBroom 11mo ago
- SecretDreams 11mo ago> The fact that capital owners successfully avoid contributing to the financing of our states and social systems is, in my view, one of the fundamental problems of our time. So the government is going to fix this, right? Right...?
- Gud 11mo agoI could not agree more. Another fundamental problem is that the means of production are concentrated into the hands of a few.
- vladms 11mo agoAre they though? At least for AI/software the last 30 years were fantastic to have universal access to means of production (compilers, tools, operating systems, models, you name it). I am more worried about the capability of people to use the free means of production (more precisely improve education) rather than the concentration. Edit: and to remove any doubt, I do agree that taxation of capital is completely badly done now, but I do not think the capital is about owning the means of production but about the capital (effort) required to organize people to use the (mostly) free means of production.
- atomicthumbs 11mo agoThere are more things in this world than software. Many of them are important!
- jmyeet 11mo agoIt's hard to truly comprehend the damage Red Scare did to all of our collective lives. The Post-WW2 era utterly destroyed the labor movement and pretty much any form of collective action. And all but about 10,000 people are worse off for it. So many commnents here, yours included, make perfect sense when you simply look at them through the lens of the workers' relationship to the means of production. Automation could be a good thing. It could mean we need to do less work and have more leisure time. Instead it gets concentrated in the hands of very few so they can become even wealthier. And the resultant layoffs are used to extract free labor from the people who remain and suppress their wages, all to eke out more profits.
- knuppar 11mo agothere is hope for HN!!!
- lab14 11mo agoIs there any time in human history where this wasn't the case? Genuinely curious.
- haizhung 11mo agoAfter world war 2, most of the western world had wealth taxes. The US had eg. >90% income taxes, and death taxes of up to 77% on inherited wealth. You know, exactly that span of time that everyone agrees on being really prosperous.
- throwaway638637 11mo agoWe should do what the moslems do. 2.5% wealth tax on everybody above a minimal wealth threshold!
- andsoitis 11mo ago> The fact that capital owners successfully avoid contributing to the financing of our states and social systems is Are you sure capital owners do not contribute to our states and financial systems? For instance, Jeff Bezos is worth $238 billion even though Amazon has a $2.6 trillion market cap. That's $2.4 trillion of value created for other shareholders plus trillions more for employees, customers, suppliers, governments, and other stakeholders. Jensen Huang is worth $164 billion while NVIDIA’s market cap is $5 trillion. That’s $4.8 trillion of value for other people (ignoring value created for non-equity stakeholders). etc. I'm not saying that there should not ALSO be other ways to force contribution (e.g. via taxes), but to say they do not contribute at all is false.
- code_for_monkey 11mo agoI would say they dont contribute. I don't think Jeff Bezos has contributed anything positive, at all. He's managed to become insanely rich in a system that rewards bad behavior, so what? All that value isnt doing anything.
- cons0le 11mo agoAbsolutely. Creating value in the stock market is not the same thing as creating value for society. Are we really better off as a society now that amazon has closed down all the mom & pop stores? Are we really better off as a society now that the entire internet is centralized around AWS? It made a lot of people rich, but the internet sucks more than ever
- SirMaster 11mo agoAre you saying Amazon isn't a positive? Or that Bezos didn't contribute to making Amazon what it is? I think it's pretty clear Amazon is quite a positive given by how many people like using it so much for it's convenient 1-stop shop, quick shipping, and hassle-free return process. Are you saying it would be better to have to shop at 1000 different little websites with probably crappy or at least inconsistent return processes?
- 11mo ago
- trimethylpurine 11mo agoof all* time.
- unboxingelf 11mo agoI argue there is a more fundamental problem with the money: Debasement. Debasement is an invisible tax and its effects far outweigh individuals bypassing taxes.
- IAmBroom 11mo ago... which is a different topic. This thread is about the fair taxation of AI, if any.
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- jimbokun 11mo agoCan we have a grown up discussion that uses numbers instead of hyperbole? Certainly you can argue income inequality is too high and capital holders and high earners need to pay much more. But you cannot seriously argue that capital owners "avoid contributing to the financing of our states and social systems". They pay a lot in capital gains and income taxes, even if they don't contribute as much as they should.
- mrwrong 11mo ago> Can we have a grown up discussion starting your reply with an insult, great way to spark "grown up discussion"
- pinkmuffinere 11mo agoWhat is the non-insulting alternative? Here's my proposal: Can we have an honest discussion that uses numbers instead of hyperbole? Notably, that still seems pretty insulting to me. jimbokun wants to have an honest discussion about the problem, using true data instead of emotional exaggeration. This is a reasonable thing to ask IMO, but of course it seems like an insult towards the person that's making stuff up.
- adventured 11mo agoThe whole reason for the use of "pay their fair share" while never actually defining what the fair share is supposed to be. It's solely about hit & run propaganda. Avoiding discussing actual numbers is a requirement to the politics.
- n1b0m 11mo agoUltra-wealthy individuals legally minimise their tax liability by: Receiving a relatively low official salary (Bezos's Amazon salary was $81,840 for many years). Not receiving dividends, so the wealth remains in stock that is not taxed annually. Borrowing money against their stock holdings to fund their lifestyle. Loans are not considered income and are therefore not taxable, and the interest on the loans can sometimes be used as a deduction.
- golergka 11mo agoMost of the capital is owned (through pension funds and then different investment funds) by completely ordinary people who put their completely ordinary savings into it and get completely ordinary pensions out of it. So you are effectively suggesting to forcibly take their money from them and then give it back, but through a corrupt and bureaucratic system of the state.
- SunshineTheCat 11mo agoThe top 1% of earners in the US pay 40% of all income taxes. https://usafacts.org/articles/who-pays-the-most-income-tax/ https://usafacts.org/articles/who-pays-the-most-income-tax/
- fizx 11mo agoThis isn't about income.
- pinkmuffinere 11mo agoWhat is it about if not income?
- bigmadshoe 11mo agoCapital ≠ income
- seanmcdirmid 11mo agoIncome is what you earn from your labor (the things robots will do in the future). Capital is setting money to make more money (e.g., by buying robots to get rid of labor that earns income).
- ceejayoz 11mo agoWealth. You can be fabulously wealthy without an income.
- youarentrightjr 11mo agoThe top 1% of earners aren't the capital owners, not even close.
- bal00ns 11mo agoThis covers federal income taxes only, excluding payroll taxes such as Social Security and Medicare. Including those the top 1% pays ~25% of all federal taxes while earning ~22% of all income.
- 11mo ago
- mostertoaster 11mo agoThe fact that people think, capital owners who actually provide employment and produce useful things and do better the better they serve the consumer even when their motives aren’t altruistic (and when they are altruistic it is even better) should be taxed more so the giant government corporation can make bureaucrats pockets fatter and waste a bunch of money doing inefficient things is more of a fundamental problem.
- hyperjeff 11mo agoi haven’t had my coffee yet, but i’m going to need to see this sentence diagrammed out.
- int_19h 11mo agoCapital owners don't produce useful things. Their workers do. And so you can easily turn that argument around: the workers who actually produce the useful things are, for some reason, taxed higher than the owner who didn't lift a finger to produce anything, but is entitled to all the profits by virtue of being the capital owner.
- asgraham 11mo agoI was so with you the first half of that. But the notion that everything should be capitalism is just as wrong as the notion that nothing should be capitalism (or, that capitalism only leads to bad things; obviously wrong but somehow a broadly accepted truism). Capitalism works when a market works; capitalism fails when a market fails. Healthcare is a great example, because there’s an obvious and inherent imbalance in demand vs supply. Firefighting is another great example. These also have externalities to the community as a whole that everyone gets, even when you don’t pay/need the service; so it makes sense to make everyone pay (taxes). Even if you never have a child, even if you send your kids to private school, you live in a society that could only exist because of a (formerly, relatively) high standard of public education. So everyone pays for schools. The idea of government bureaucrats lining their pockets is also (formerly, relatively) ridiculous: who would get into US government bureaucracy to make money? They are all (formerly, relatively) doing it almost uniformly because they believe in the mission, because they would almost all make more money going private.
- tt24 11mo agoRich people pay pretty much all taxes in the United States.
- platevoltage 11mo agoYeah, and they should pay more.
- tt24 11mo agoNo thanks. I’ll happily vote against this at any opportunity.
- platevoltage 11mo agoI guess I don’t like the taste of of boot leather as much as you do.
- tt24 11mo agoOr as a top 1% income earner (like most SWEs in the United States) I just don’t enjoy paying taxes very much.
- platevoltage 11mo agoMost SWE's are not top 1% earners. What are you talking about?
- tt24 11mo agoYou intentionally neglected to add a very relevant piece of my sentence.
- EGreg 11mo agoI find it ironic that individual income tax is a thing in USA, but as soon as AI does the work, oh only the owner has to pay. As a libertarian, I find the whole requirement for workers to secure an accountant and file individual income taxes under threat of retaliation silly. Individuals should be free to engage in activities like working for an employer, taking care of their kids or aging parents, or having sex, without paying tax to the government. Taxes should be levied on companies and robots, not humans doing everyday things. The employer knows exactly how much they are paying each employee, and they already have accountants on staff. Why create "bullshit jobs" just for employees to file this same exact information again? So yeah, we shouldn't wait for AI to replace workers, to abolish the individual income tax for individuals. It should have been done a long time ago. Employers can pay the tax (as they do with FICA). And in fact, we're going to have to have a tax regime that taxes robots, which would become the primary economic actors soon anyway. If corporations can have legal personhood, surely robots can too LMAO.
- dennis_jeeves2 11mo ago>Taxes should be levied on companies and robots, not humans doing everyday things. This is also a slippery slope. As slippery as taxing individuals, property etc.
- EGreg 11mo agoI for one am ready to tax our robotic replacement workers
- dennis_jeeves2 11mo agoIf you are a libertarian and you have give it some thought - the correct amount of taxation is zero on all fronts. Every time you give power to the govt to tax you (or the robots you make) you are dissolving the freedom you process. ( It's another large conversation as to the best ways to sustain the govt)
- rayiner 11mo agoEconomists generally agree that taxing capital owners is bad policy and taxes should be directed at consumers: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/07/19/157047211/six-policies-economists-love-and-politicians-hate https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/07/19/157047211/six-... > Three: Eliminate the corporate income tax. Completely. If companies reinvest the money into their businesses, that's good. Don't tax companies in an effort to tax rich people. > Four: Eliminate all income and payroll taxes. All of them. For everyone. Taxes discourage whatever you're taxing, but we like income, so why tax it? Payroll taxes discourage creating jobs. Not such a good idea. Instead, impose a consumption tax, designed to be progressive to protect lower-income households. Our fundamental problem is not that we don't tax Jeff Bezos. It's that we don't tax the people who have multiple boxes of Chinese goods coming from Amazon to their houses every day.
- unethical_ban 11mo agoTaxes discourage whatever you're taxing, but we like consumption, so why tax it? Sales taxes discourage velocity of money. Not such a good idea. Instead, impose an income tax, designed to be progressive to protect lower income households.
- rayiner 11mo agoArgue with the economists not with me.
- xyzzyz 11mo agoBecause if you're taxing income, you're discouraging production, and discouraging consumption is better than discouraging production.
- unethical_ban 11mo agoWhy need production if you don't have consumption? I jest, only partially. I suppose we do things how we do because taxing income is a lot easier to do progressively than taxing consumption. You can't meter how many times someone has been out to eat or how many gallons of gas they have put into their car, but you can more easily track what their employer puts in their bank account.
- WalterBright 11mo ago> The fact that capital owners successfully avoid contributing to the financing of our states and social systems The top 1% pay 40% of the Federal income tax.
- marliechiller 11mo agoThe top 1% arent the problem. The top <=0.001% are the problem.
- WalterBright 11mo agoThe problem is the amount of government spending, which will never be enough.
- dmitrygr 11mo ago> capital owners successfully avoid contributing to the financing of our states and social system Say what now? So i've been paying cap gains tax like a chump while there is a "no thanks" option you're aware of? Please tell me where to tick that box.
- strangattractor 11mo agoInteresting discussion concerning this on Prof G at around 35 minutes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EklEzXBQP9U&t=1353s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EklEzXBQP9U&t=1353s
- GFischer 11mo agoI don't understand why socialists or communists don't tax the means of production accordingly, if they don't have money, take partial ownership (or complete ownership and turn it into a co-op or something). Owners of capital and means of production have succesfully gamed the system and most of the tax burden falls on us middle class idiots that pay taxes on our work.