4 ms·

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

by 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.
wwind123 1mo ago
Taxing resource consumption, would likely encourage companies to optimize for less and less resource consumption. That by itself might be a good thing. But what if some day companies achieved the ultimate savings, using very little resource to produce the max amount of things. You'd get very little tax revenue to feed the society. Of course, if those max amounts of things have few consumers because most people are just too poor to afford them, that'd make companies (or the agents that run companies) think twice too. At some point these AI agents might work together to come up with an economic system to make it possible for society to afford their products so they could further grow.
- groestl 1mo ago
  > most people are just too poor to afford them I think a resource consumption based tax model extends very neatly to a UBI model. One could think of as: "this is the basic resource consumption we allow each person" and it automatically generates demand for basic services everyone should be able to afford with their share of resources, while keeping a free market and allowing an economy on top with extra resources. Standard money could still be the means for value exchange, just taxing works differently.

by groestl 1mo ago

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.

wwind123 1mo ago

Taxing resource consumption, would likely encourage companies to optimize for less and less resource consumption. That by itself might be a good thing. But what if some day companies achieved the ultimate savings, using very little resource to produce the max amount of things. You'd get very little tax revenue to feed the society. Of course, if those max amounts of things have few consumers because most people are just too poor to afford them, that'd make companies (or the agents that run companies) think twice too. At some point these AI agents might work together to come up with an economic system to make it possible for society to afford their products so they could further grow.

groestl 1mo ago
> most people are just too poor to afford them I think a resource consumption based tax model extends very neatly to a UBI model. One could think of as: "this is the basic resource consumption we allow each person" and it automatically generates demand for basic services everyone should be able to afford with their share of resources, while keeping a free market and allowing an economy on top with extra resources. Standard money could still be the means for value exchange, just taxing works differently.