This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Why should AI have to pay taxes when we have an ever increasing pool of poors, thanks in large part to AI taking their jobs, to increase the taxes on.. in order to fund AI and to give tax breaks to the trillionaires?
and because there is inevitably going to be someone who fails to understand sarcasm, the heaviest of /s
I think we should just let the billionaires have all of it, they seem to be the ones that need it the most.
Because AI is a disruptive technology we should require 40% of gross profits be put into a fund to address its negative externalities.
Joke's on you.
They don't actually make any money. Not unless their a monopoly that's captured regulators anyway.
Gross profits, that way they are even more fucked. Can't make it profitable? I guess it wasn't meant to be.
You mean gross revenue?
That would be even more brutal, but sure I could agree to that. Then you could talk them down to gross profit so they feel like they are getting something.
Better yet: nationalize the AI companies. Make AI like water supply or fire service - a public utility. My government is VERY far from perfect, but even a country with any semblance of democracy has a better chance of making AI safe and useful to all than a greedy corporation. That way the training data and model parameters can be opened to public scrutiny.
It needs a 900% tarrif on all good. That will surely fix the economy
Dumb article.
AI shouldn't pay taxes, but the companies making them should
Not an expert at all, but I think to an extent this already happens with the current system in most countries, and it would probably need to be done much more now. Not that Automation pays more taxes, but that having employees generally qualifies companies for tax breaks.
For instance, when Amazon said "we're going to open a new HQ", Cities and States tripped over themselves to try and give them the largest tax breaks. But that was under the assumption that the HQ would give jobs to tens of thousand of people, not to 5 data scientist and a massive, energy-hungry data center.
Yes because the amount of money being generated by a small group of people and the amount of money we will need not only to support AI but also the masses of underemployed and unemployed people it will create would require it if we maintain a capitalist-ish system that relies on AI and robotics for everything.
Because here's the thing everyone seems to get wrong. Money isn't like firewood, that's something the establishment want people to believe so they can excuse defunding healthcare to fund subsidies for their friends. Money is like electricity. On it's own sat in Scrooge McDuck's Moneypit it has no value, but when it's spent, that's when it creates value.
That's why small businesses are better for the economy than big ones, because when you spend a tenner at a small business, it's more likely to be spent right afterwards, for example, to pay their workers, who then pays the babysitter, who then pays the take out who then pays the supplier. That tenner was spent five times and thus created £50 worth of value, whereas if you just spent it at your local Tesco, chances are that tenner goes to the CEO's bank balance and stays there, not creating any value. Money that isn't being spent is money that doesn't create value. Billionaires aren't billionaires because they make money by working hard, they horde money by using a small amount of their stash to collect even more money, and that money doesn't get used. This is why Trickle Down Economics doesn't work and never will because it takes money out the system.
Now when the amount of money being spent in an economy is low to the point that ventures can't operate properly, that's called a recession. It's why central banks and governments try to get the economy going by putting some of it's own money into the system a bit like trying to get a power grid back online in a Black Start. If the "energy" in an economy is being horded in the bank accounts of an evershrinking collection of people rather than being put into the economy, well, eventually, we're gonna have an economic blackout (recession). This is why Billionaires are terrible for the economy, because they take money out of the economy and keep it for themselves, producing a net loss to the system. If there's less money in the system, there's less value being created.
The Solution? Piñata economics! Make the billionaires put money into the economy to the economy doesn't shut down. Now the Billionaires and their allies have overthrown nations for suggesting they pay a little bit more Tax because they use money as a way to control people and maintain power over their countries and/or interests. This is why Capitalism is more a Political system than an Economic one. The solution, me thinks, would be to turn to the billionaires and say "You can only a maximum of £1 billion in your bank account, if you make £100 billion, that year, you will have to spend £99 Billion. If you still have over £1 Billion in your bank account, we take everything above a billion so you end up with £1 Billion again so we can spend it on things like infrastructure."
If the Billionaire doesn't want to give their money to the government, they can give it to charity or spend it on whatever they want. If they spend it, it creates value (which is good for the economy), if they give it to charity, those charities will spend it on good works, which is good for both society and the economy. They could spend it on their business (which will create jobs and thus, value) but if they don't, let's say they have £2.2 Billion in their accounts, the government gets £1.1 Billion to spend of infrastructure projects, healthcare, and Welfare, all of which will help the economy because Infrastructure allows for economic activities, Healthcare means people can create value and people on Welfare can buy things like food and shelter which, guess what, creates value because they're spending money.
If billionaires are going to make money without employing humans and thus, take more money out of the economy, they should pay more in taxes so the bloody economy doesn't grind to a halt.
If you still have over £1 Billion in your bank account, we take everything above a billion so you end up with £1 Billion again so we can spend it on things like infrastructure.”
Even if it was feasible to implement something like that -- it isn't because Congress has been bought by rich folks since it began -- what would really happen is that money would artificially circulate between a few hands in the big boy's club, and nothing would really change.
Billionaires aren't sitting on billions in currency held in banking accounts. They are holding billions in assets which are valued at those numbers. You couldn't just take all of Bezo's "wealth" above $1b without liquidating most of Amazon.
Not that I disagree with you in principle, it's just not as simple as your proposed solution requires.
And who told you this?
The billionaires. Straight up.
The current tech brings a modest productivity increase when used correctly, but it isn’t really taking anyone’s jobs. Articles like this that support the fraudster’s false claim that it will are part of the problem. No, don’t tax AI, just don’t use taxpayer money to bail these fuckers out when the bubble pops.
Come on, we all know it will still be the poor and middle class.
If AI replaces workers then capitalism is no longer possible. What's the next step here?
If AI replaces workers then capitalism is no longer possible. What’s the next step here?
When Capitalism replaced Feudalism, the elites of the Feudal society became the elites of the Capitalistic Society. When mechanization replaced workers, we saw some horrific conditions where the elites made loads of money while workers did work that was long and backbreaking while living in poverty.
So what I would imagine is a load of people working long hours for doing the few things AI and Automation can't do for a pittance while a small group of tech oligarchs make loads of money.
Seems like we'd need to cull a percentage of the masses to make this work "economically".
oh don't worry, "The Invisible hand of the Free Market" will do that for us,
Tax is a special benefit for being a human.
No, but the companies using it should.
Companies:
But corporations are people, and people pay taxes. So yes, you will be doing that here.
I’m honestly fine with companies not paying taxes so long as their profits are being spent on people in lower tax brackets.
Current tax structure makes it easy for the company to just give all their profits to their executives.
70% tax on income over $1 million. Go back to a progressive tax structure for company profits. Not sure why my local donut shop is paying the same rate as Microsoft.
good luck, churches don't even pay taxes
But they're charities that are not for profit...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ... AAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
This kind of anthropomorphisation is bad, it shows a lack of understanding of the technology, it's a terrible idea.
Seizing the means of production means pretty much exactly this, yes.
No, it shouldn't. The same way as factory machines don't pay it.
I agree. Workers shouldn’t pay taxes, same way as the other machinery.
They kinda do via taxes that are calculated based on the companies inventory value.
Good luck with that..
America was founded on the concept of no taxation without representation.
