6 ms·

> Automation can’t be taxed. Sure it can. Take shares in companies. Put them into a sovereign wealth fund.

by triceratops 2mo ago

cactacea 2mo ago
Well that just sounds like communism with extra steps.
- triceratops 2mo ago
  What's your point? I only showed a way to tax automation. The labels are left as an exercise for the reader.
- idiotsecant 2mo ago
  Ooh spookey
- AngryData 2mo ago
  That doesn't seem like much of a threat anymore with China as an industrial powerhouse and contries like Norway sitting on state owned industries.
lazide 2mo ago
That isn’t a tax by the normal definition, just seizure.
- scotty79 2mo ago
  Shares aren't a real thing. They are paper invented out of thin air with intent to pull the money out of capital market. There are already many rules about what you have to do be allowed to sell them to the public. Adding a rule that 10% of whatever you print must be put under national democratic control is not inconceivable.
  - lazide 2mo ago
    Shares are proxies for ownership/control. What you are proposing is literally what China does to ensure CCP control of all businesses. Do you really want whoever is in power at the moment to have (even more direct) control over every business in the country? Because that is literally how you do that.
    - scotty79 2mo ago
      > Shares are proxies for ownership/control. Connection between shares and ownership is tenuous at best and rarely exercised. > What you are proposing is literally what China does to ensure CCP control of all businesses. 10% is not control. China is not democratic. Given that, Chinese companies seem to be doing quite well under those conditions. Better than Western ones. > Do you really want whoever is in power at the moment to have (even more direct) control over every business in the country? Do you really want all economic power to be controlled in undemocratic manner rather than democratic? Because that is literally what we have now and society and governments are getting impoverished and companies are getting outcompeted too.
      - lazide 2mo ago
        Hardly, it's quite a clear relationship and exercised constantly - if you do the math re: share classes and look at what a corporation actually does. In most large corporations, 10% is often the largest single shareholder and/or bloc. In democratic countries, we pass laws and let that do the talking. If the gov't owns direct shares, whoever is in charge of the gov't is de-facto the 'controller' of them, eh? So no congress, no laws, no vote of the people after they pick whoever is 'in charge'. Doesn't sound very democratic to me?
        scotty79 2mo ago
        > Hardly, it's quite a clear relationship and exercised constantly - if you do the math re: share classes and look at what a corporation actually does. Look at the stock market. Out of billion trades maybe one is related to actual ownership of actual company. “Shares are mostly casino tokens tied to the success of a company - or rather, the perception thereof. > In democratic countries, we pass laws and let that do the talking. If the gov't owns direct shares, whoever is in charge of the gov't is de-facto the 'controller' of them, eh? It could be shares without any control rights. Still reduces the amount of resources outside of democratic control. Not by taking control yourself but by removing it from unelected individuals.
- triceratops 2mo ago
  Not at all. Before the widespread availability of currency, taxes were always paid in property. Farmers paid with bushels of wheat or turnips or whatever.
  - lazide 2mo ago
    Those are goods. Shares are also not property, in the real sense. They are fractional ownership.
    - triceratops 2mo ago
      > Those are goods. Potato property. A property is whatever you own. Do you or do you not own the contents of your fridge? > Shares are also not property, in the real sense. I assume by "real" you mean "land". Who cares? > They are fractional ownership. So you acknowledge that shares are property then.
      - lazide 2mo ago
        [flagged]
        AnimalMuppet 2mo ago
        No, there was a valid point there. "Fractional ownership" and "not property" don't seem to fit together - unless your claim is that only land counts as "property". You didn't explain at all how that works. To a post pointing out your contradiction, you said "ignorant word salad". That's not an answer; that's an evasion. So at the moment, to this bystander, you're losing the discussion, because you're the one evading the other guy's point. Would you care to actually answer it? Or should we conclude that you have no actual answer, but still won't admit you're wrong?
        lazide 2mo ago
        Man, alts are out of control eh? Getting pretty obvious eh! Feel free to do some legal analysis, and figure out what definitions of ‘property’ have evolved out over time so we can argue why ‘real property’ is called what it is.

> Automation can’t be taxed. Sure it can. Take shares in companies. Put them into a sovereign wealth fund.

cactacea 2mo ago

Well that just sounds like communism with extra steps.

triceratops 2mo ago
What's your point? I only showed a way to tax automation. The labels are left as an exercise for the reader.
idiotsecant 2mo ago
Ooh spookey
AngryData 2mo ago
That doesn't seem like much of a threat anymore with China as an industrial powerhouse and contries like Norway sitting on state owned industries.

lazide 2mo ago

That isn’t a tax by the normal definition, just seizure.

scotty79 2mo ago
Shares aren't a real thing. They are paper invented out of thin air with intent to pull the money out of capital market. There are already many rules about what you have to do be allowed to sell them to the public. Adding a rule that 10% of whatever you print must be put under national democratic control is not inconceivable.
- lazide 2mo ago
  Shares are proxies for ownership/control. What you are proposing is literally what China does to ensure CCP control of all businesses. Do you really want whoever is in power at the moment to have (even more direct) control over every business in the country? Because that is literally how you do that.
  - scotty79 2mo ago
    > Shares are proxies for ownership/control. Connection between shares and ownership is tenuous at best and rarely exercised. > What you are proposing is literally what China does to ensure CCP control of all businesses. 10% is not control. China is not democratic. Given that, Chinese companies seem to be doing quite well under those conditions. Better than Western ones. > Do you really want whoever is in power at the moment to have (even more direct) control over every business in the country? Do you really want all economic power to be controlled in undemocratic manner rather than democratic? Because that is literally what we have now and society and governments are getting impoverished and companies are getting outcompeted too.
    - lazide 2mo ago
      Hardly, it's quite a clear relationship and exercised constantly - if you do the math re: share classes and look at what a corporation actually does. In most large corporations, 10% is often the largest single shareholder and/or bloc. In democratic countries, we pass laws and let that do the talking. If the gov't owns direct shares, whoever is in charge of the gov't is de-facto the 'controller' of them, eh? So no congress, no laws, no vote of the people after they pick whoever is 'in charge'. Doesn't sound very democratic to me?
      - scotty79 2mo ago
        > Hardly, it's quite a clear relationship and exercised constantly - if you do the math re: share classes and look at what a corporation actually does. Look at the stock market. Out of billion trades maybe one is related to actual ownership of actual company. “Shares are mostly casino tokens tied to the success of a company - or rather, the perception thereof. > In democratic countries, we pass laws and let that do the talking. If the gov't owns direct shares, whoever is in charge of the gov't is de-facto the 'controller' of them, eh? It could be shares without any control rights. Still reduces the amount of resources outside of democratic control. Not by taking control yourself but by removing it from unelected individuals.
triceratops 2mo ago
Not at all. Before the widespread availability of currency, taxes were always paid in property. Farmers paid with bushels of wheat or turnips or whatever.
- lazide 2mo ago
  Those are goods. Shares are also not property, in the real sense. They are fractional ownership.
  - triceratops 2mo ago
    > Those are goods. Potato property. A property is whatever you own. Do you or do you not own the contents of your fridge? > Shares are also not property, in the real sense. I assume by "real" you mean "land". Who cares? > They are fractional ownership. So you acknowledge that shares are property then.
    - lazide 2mo ago
      [flagged]
      - AnimalMuppet 2mo ago
        No, there was a valid point there. "Fractional ownership" and "not property" don't seem to fit together - unless your claim is that only land counts as "property". You didn't explain at all how that works. To a post pointing out your contradiction, you said "ignorant word salad". That's not an answer; that's an evasion. So at the moment, to this bystander, you're losing the discussion, because you're the one evading the other guy's point. Would you care to actually answer it? Or should we conclude that you have no actual answer, but still won't admit you're wrong?
        lazide 2mo ago
        Man, alts are out of control eh? Getting pretty obvious eh! Feel free to do some legal analysis, and figure out what definitions of ‘property’ have evolved out over time so we can argue why ‘real property’ is called what it is.