3 ms·

The crux of this entire issue surrounding replacing people with agents, is that agents should pay taxes. If we're losing people that pay taxes our social safety

by midasz 1mo ago

The crux of this entire issue surrounding replacing people with agents, is that agents should pay taxes. If we're losing people that pay taxes our social safety nets will crumble. Maybe that makes the math more in favor of actually using humans too.

nextaccountic 1mo ago
Taxes can't replace people spending money and getting goods and services. Also, who said AI is getting paid well enough to afford paying taxes?
PUSH_AX 1mo ago
Doesn't this assume those people don't just find other jobs and continue to pay taxes?
- midasz 1mo ago
  Where does it end though? The most optimistic (or pessimistic, depending on your viewpoint) say that AI will be able to replace or displace lots of professions. Is there enough work for everyone? Is there enough meaningful work for everyone? A software engineer or accountant making ~150k a year will find another job that pays less, so he will also pay less taxes. What's going to happen in the short term, inbetween this shift? A bunch of unhappy unemployed people leaning on social systems. That seems pretty devastating. Who is going to come out as winners?
  - hdgvhicv 1mo ago
    Probably best to read dickens to see the future. Just remove the moral obligations the penning class felt they had in the 19th century.
    - hdgvhicv 1mo ago
      Owning, not penning.
  - tonyedgecombe 1mo ago
    Expect more populist politicians promising things they can’t deliver and blaming whatever out group they dislike.
groestl 1mo ago
I'm fully in favor of a social safety net (a proper UBI even), but the tax system should tax what we don't want / keep within bounds, and I think in general we want more automation and more free time. So we should tax resource consumption. Short time, this might turn out the same (i.e. whether to tax agents through electricity consumption or agents directly might not make much of a difference) but I think long term this would align incentives across a few dimensions very well.
- hdgvhicv 1mo ago
  For decades we have taxed what we want - productive work - far more than other forms.
  - happymellon 1mo ago
    It should be a clue that most of the people making the rules are generally considered nonproductive, or at least adjacent to and aspiring to be nonproductive.
  - groestl 1mo ago
    And I think that is a major mistake, has many unwanted side effects, and only works because work supply does not yet exceed demand, so the taxes still keep flowing. But the relationship is beginning to break and I think a resource consumption based model helps with two very current challenges of society.
    - hdgvhicv 1mo ago
      Helps who? The people who make the rules (by brainwashing the population through a trillion dollar advertising industry what would make Pravda blush) only want to help themselves. As long as they have enough toys to prevent a French Revolution or for other people to take their wealth, they’re happy. 200 years ago, even 1000 years ago, the rich had to live in the same towns as the masses so they did actually put effort into keeping them nice. Building amenities, providing jobs, etc. They don’t have to do that now. Power extends far beyond a 20 mile radius. They don’t have to go anywhere near the people.
XCSme 1mo ago
I don't think taxes are the main issue, but people losing their jobs. We need UBI. Taxes are still there anyway, company income/profit tax, VAT, and maybe we can have other taxes too for automatically-generate income, same as with investments/dividend/gambling tax and stuff.
Nemo_bis 1mo ago
Jeremy Rifkin already wrote about that in 1995. His predictions might have been wrong by a few decades. :-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Work https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Work
LIMEVINCE 1mo ago
Where do you draw the line to define an "agent" that should pay taxes? Many jobs once done entirely by humans have been replaced by software or mechanical automation long before AI came along. The issue of eroding social safety nets due to declining income tax revenue can be solved in a much more straightforward manner that doesn't require complex AI tax schemes.
McDyver 1mo ago
Here's a wild idea: about the CEO and shareholders being properly taxed, instead? Every job being replaced by AI is with the purpose of making more money for the CEO and shareholders, right? So, tax them more. It would solve SO MANY issues
DarmokTanagra 1mo ago
How about we start making billionaires and their companies pay taxes first?

by midasz 1mo ago

nextaccountic 1mo ago

Taxes can't replace people spending money and getting goods and services. Also, who said AI is getting paid well enough to afford paying taxes?

PUSH_AX 1mo ago

Doesn't this assume those people don't just find other jobs and continue to pay taxes?

midasz 1mo ago
Where does it end though? The most optimistic (or pessimistic, depending on your viewpoint) say that AI will be able to replace or displace lots of professions. Is there enough work for everyone? Is there enough meaningful work for everyone? A software engineer or accountant making ~150k a year will find another job that pays less, so he will also pay less taxes. What's going to happen in the short term, inbetween this shift? A bunch of unhappy unemployed people leaning on social systems. That seems pretty devastating. Who is going to come out as winners?
- hdgvhicv 1mo ago
  Probably best to read dickens to see the future. Just remove the moral obligations the penning class felt they had in the 19th century.
  - hdgvhicv 1mo ago
    Owning, not penning.
- tonyedgecombe 1mo ago
  Expect more populist politicians promising things they can’t deliver and blaming whatever out group they dislike.

groestl 1mo ago

I'm fully in favor of a social safety net (a proper UBI even), but the tax system should tax what we don't want / keep within bounds, and I think in general we want more automation and more free time. So we should tax resource consumption. Short time, this might turn out the same (i.e. whether to tax agents through electricity consumption or agents directly might not make much of a difference) but I think long term this would align incentives across a few dimensions very well.

hdgvhicv 1mo ago
For decades we have taxed what we want - productive work - far more than other forms.
- happymellon 1mo ago
  It should be a clue that most of the people making the rules are generally considered nonproductive, or at least adjacent to and aspiring to be nonproductive.
- groestl 1mo ago
  And I think that is a major mistake, has many unwanted side effects, and only works because work supply does not yet exceed demand, so the taxes still keep flowing. But the relationship is beginning to break and I think a resource consumption based model helps with two very current challenges of society.
  - hdgvhicv 1mo ago
    Helps who? The people who make the rules (by brainwashing the population through a trillion dollar advertising industry what would make Pravda blush) only want to help themselves. As long as they have enough toys to prevent a French Revolution or for other people to take their wealth, they’re happy. 200 years ago, even 1000 years ago, the rich had to live in the same towns as the masses so they did actually put effort into keeping them nice. Building amenities, providing jobs, etc. They don’t have to do that now. Power extends far beyond a 20 mile radius. They don’t have to go anywhere near the people.

XCSme 1mo ago

I don't think taxes are the main issue, but people losing their jobs. We need UBI. Taxes are still there anyway, company income/profit tax, VAT, and maybe we can have other taxes too for automatically-generate income, same as with investments/dividend/gambling tax and stuff.

Nemo_bis 1mo ago

Jeremy Rifkin already wrote about that in 1995. His predictions might have been wrong by a few decades. :-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Work https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Work

LIMEVINCE 1mo ago

Where do you draw the line to define an "agent" that should pay taxes? Many jobs once done entirely by humans have been replaced by software or mechanical automation long before AI came along. The issue of eroding social safety nets due to declining income tax revenue can be solved in a much more straightforward manner that doesn't require complex AI tax schemes.

McDyver 1mo ago

Here's a wild idea: about the CEO and shareholders being properly taxed, instead? Every job being replaced by AI is with the purpose of making more money for the CEO and shareholders, right? So, tax them more. It would solve SO MANY issues

DarmokTanagra 1mo ago

How about we start making billionaires and their companies pay taxes first?