4 ms·

>All the more reason we as a society need to come up with a better solution to "unskilled people need to eat" beyond blaming the greed of silicon valley compani

by nawitus 11y ago

>All the more reason we as a society need to come up with a better solution to "unskilled people need to eat" beyond blaming the greed of silicon valley companies. The solution is basic income. That doesn't seem realistic in the United States, though.

ekianjo 11y ago
> The solution is basic income. Yeah, basic income coming from where? Oh wait, the machines doing all the work, right. Let's talk again when we reach singularity. If ever.
- gohrt 11y ago
  "basic income" is not the same as "post-scarcity"
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- seiji 11y ago
  basic income coming from where? The idea would be to increase taxes on companies hoarding profits due to increased automation (i.e. "tax the robots and give the money back to displaced humans"). Then you redistribute those profits back to the public by slowly (or quickly) adjusting the social security age down to birth (or age of majority) as revenue from taxing automation increases. Not going to happen in our current political climate though.
  - prostoalex 11y ago
    This only seems to work for the country where such company is headquartered. The technological advantage, meanwhile, spreads to pretty much any country (e.g. countries that had little with invention of television or automobiles have TV sets and roads), so what's the solution for them?
    - dllthomas 11y ago
      Include them in the same system.
      - prostoalex 11y ago
        Would the numbers add up to anything above trivial? Alaska has a variable annual payout, and while $1,900 a year is better than $0 a year, it has not led to economic/artistic/scientific revolutions described by basic income proponents.
        dllthomas 11y ago
        "Would the numbers add up to anything above trivial?" Initially? Probably not for those in developed countries. The median per-capita household income (per http://www.gallup.com/poll/166211/worldwide-median-household-income-000.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/166211/worldwide-median-household..., as of 2013) is about $3k/yr. For half the people on the planet, $100/yr would make an appreciable difference in their purchasing power (more than 1/3 their monthly income). Is that a practical amount? $100/yr for every person on the planet is less than 5% of the GDP of the US, and less than 1% of the global GDP (GWP). If the US was going to foot the bill alone (it shouldn't), it would be about a quarter of our tax revenues. Steep, but doesn't sound financially impossible (political and infrastructural issues may well be another matter).
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Yeah, basic income coming from where? Coming from taxing capital income like other income, rather than giving it preferential tax treatment that favors the already rich.
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    Capital income does not receive preferential tax treatment. The combined taxes on income + corporate tax + capital gains greatly exceed the tax rate on labor income. Scott Sumner explaining how all capital income taxes are additive w.r.t labor income tax: http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=28842 http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=28842 Also just do the arithmetic; 1-(1-corporate income tax)(1-cap gains tax) >income tax for pretty much any bracket.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > Capital income does not receive preferential tax treatment. Yes, it does. > The combined taxes on income + corporate tax + capital gains greatly exceed the tax rate on labor income. It makes no sense to combine those things, especially since not all capital holdings which recieve the benefit of favorable capital taxation are investment in entities that are even theoretically subject to corporate income taxes. > Scott Sumner explaining how all capital income taxes are additive w.r.t labor income tax He certainly asserts that income tax "doubles [sic] taxes the money saved, once as wages, and again as capital income." But this is a ludicrous assertion, since the part taxed as labor income is not taxed as capital income. > Also just do the arithmetic; 1-(1-corporate income tax)(1-cap gains tax) >income tax for pretty much any bracket. Even for the things where that might be relevant, that's probably only true if you look at the nominal corporate income tax rate rather than the effective corporate income tax rate.
      - yummyfajitas 11y ago
        It makes no sense to combine those things, especially since not all capital holdings which recieve the benefit of favorable capital taxation are investment in entities that are even theoretically subject to corporate income taxes. Could you do some arithmetic? I'm not really sure what you are talking about. But this is a ludicrous assertion, since the part taxed as labor income is not taxed as capital income. This is simple arithmetic. Suppose I'm paid $100, taxed $20 on labor income. Then I invest the remaining $80, cash out at $90 and pay $2.50 in cap gains. I've then paid another 2.8% (adjusted for NPV). Taxes on capital income always come after labor income, except for certain special tax deferred investment vehicles which treat capital income as equal to labor income.
prostoalex 11y ago
Alaska is already there with the annual check from oil wealth fund. Addressing the "need to eat" problem though, the government would have a much better leverage withholding the money to buy up food in bulk than let individual buyers with no leverage negotiate their own prices.

by nawitus 11y ago

ekianjo 11y ago

> The solution is basic income. Yeah, basic income coming from where? Oh wait, the machines doing all the work, right. Let's talk again when we reach singularity. If ever.

gohrt 11y ago
"basic income" is not the same as "post-scarcity"
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
seiji 11y ago
basic income coming from where? The idea would be to increase taxes on companies hoarding profits due to increased automation (i.e. "tax the robots and give the money back to displaced humans"). Then you redistribute those profits back to the public by slowly (or quickly) adjusting the social security age down to birth (or age of majority) as revenue from taxing automation increases. Not going to happen in our current political climate though.
- prostoalex 11y ago
  This only seems to work for the country where such company is headquartered. The technological advantage, meanwhile, spreads to pretty much any country (e.g. countries that had little with invention of television or automobiles have TV sets and roads), so what's the solution for them?
  - dllthomas 11y ago
    Include them in the same system.
    - prostoalex 11y ago
      Would the numbers add up to anything above trivial? Alaska has a variable annual payout, and while $1,900 a year is better than $0 a year, it has not led to economic/artistic/scientific revolutions described by basic income proponents.
      - dllthomas 11y ago
        "Would the numbers add up to anything above trivial?" Initially? Probably not for those in developed countries. The median per-capita household income (per http://www.gallup.com/poll/166211/worldwide-median-household-income-000.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/166211/worldwide-median-household..., as of 2013) is about $3k/yr. For half the people on the planet, $100/yr would make an appreciable difference in their purchasing power (more than 1/3 their monthly income). Is that a practical amount? $100/yr for every person on the planet is less than 5% of the GDP of the US, and less than 1% of the global GDP (GWP). If the US was going to foot the bill alone (it shouldn't), it would be about a quarter of our tax revenues. Steep, but doesn't sound financially impossible (political and infrastructural issues may well be another matter).
dragonwriter 11y ago
> Yeah, basic income coming from where? Coming from taxing capital income like other income, rather than giving it preferential tax treatment that favors the already rich.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  Capital income does not receive preferential tax treatment. The combined taxes on income + corporate tax + capital gains greatly exceed the tax rate on labor income. Scott Sumner explaining how all capital income taxes are additive w.r.t labor income tax: http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=28842 http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=28842 Also just do the arithmetic; 1-(1-corporate income tax)(1-cap gains tax) >income tax for pretty much any bracket.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > Capital income does not receive preferential tax treatment. Yes, it does. > The combined taxes on income + corporate tax + capital gains greatly exceed the tax rate on labor income. It makes no sense to combine those things, especially since not all capital holdings which recieve the benefit of favorable capital taxation are investment in entities that are even theoretically subject to corporate income taxes. > Scott Sumner explaining how all capital income taxes are additive w.r.t labor income tax He certainly asserts that income tax "doubles [sic] taxes the money saved, once as wages, and again as capital income." But this is a ludicrous assertion, since the part taxed as labor income is not taxed as capital income. > Also just do the arithmetic; 1-(1-corporate income tax)(1-cap gains tax) >income tax for pretty much any bracket. Even for the things where that might be relevant, that's probably only true if you look at the nominal corporate income tax rate rather than the effective corporate income tax rate.
    - yummyfajitas 11y ago
      It makes no sense to combine those things, especially since not all capital holdings which recieve the benefit of favorable capital taxation are investment in entities that are even theoretically subject to corporate income taxes. Could you do some arithmetic? I'm not really sure what you are talking about. But this is a ludicrous assertion, since the part taxed as labor income is not taxed as capital income. This is simple arithmetic. Suppose I'm paid $100, taxed $20 on labor income. Then I invest the remaining $80, cash out at $90 and pay $2.50 in cap gains. I've then paid another 2.8% (adjusted for NPV). Taxes on capital income always come after labor income, except for certain special tax deferred investment vehicles which treat capital income as equal to labor income.

prostoalex 11y ago

Alaska is already there with the annual check from oil wealth fund. Addressing the "need to eat" problem though, the government would have a much better leverage withholding the money to buy up food in bulk than let individual buyers with no leverage negotiate their own prices.