Bernie Sanders proposes taxes on robots that take jobs

Submitted by Scarlet_pot2 t3_119p5js in singularity

https://fortune.com/2023/02/21/bernie-sanders-bill-gates-robot-tax-automation-job-threat/

Currently when a business purchases an AI system it's considered capital investment so it nets them a tax exception. Bernie's bill would flip this and make it to where if you use these systems to replace workers you get taxed for it.

IMO, Bernie sanders is the best, but I don't agree with this policy. We should let the economy transition from human workers to AI. Then when unemployment is up and people are desperate, the socialists can purpose a UBI. Penalizing businesses for transitioning to AI workers will slow the process of becoming a fully automated economy with UBI

319

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

beambot t1_j9ni3gp wrote

How to distinguish between robot, software or machinery? More importantly: you want to tax things like low-margin farming more because they use automation?! That is senseless. Tax gains -- especially high-margin profits from the mega corps.

91

Ortus14 t1_j9o3579 wrote

This. On top of this, there's no way to distinguish what counts as "replacing workers". Companies on the cutting edge are always adopting new technology, and do their layoffs in bulk when they need to downsize for the economy, or some other cause.

When you dig down into the details, UBI is the only solution I have heard that works in practice.

19

Gagarin1961 t1_j9okgpk wrote

Bernie sanders is just a populist. He suggests whatever sounds most reassuring.

4

Iffykindofguy t1_j9otyie wrote

He's been consistent his entire career, Im not a bernie bro at all. I did not vote for him in primaries. You're just showing you cant control your feelings here bro.

11

Ambiwlans t1_j9p1imi wrote

He can consistently be a populist

4

Iffykindofguy t1_j9p56lt wrote

Idiot take.

2

Dry-Basis1304 t1_j9potjx wrote

Even Bernie doesn’t call everyone he disagrees with an idiot 🤣now you sound like trump

5

Halperwire t1_j9owfs4 wrote

Yeah I don’t agree he’s a populist at all but his ideas are mostly bad. He’s a career politician who’s never worked a day in his life.

0

Iffykindofguy t1_j9p4xqb wrote

Today I learned carpentry wasnt a job. LOL get out of here fox news npc.

5

Halperwire t1_j9ph6cy wrote

It doesn’t even mention that anywhere on his Wikipedia. Btw I’m judging his on his ideas he ran for during his presidential nomination run. Ever since then he’s been irrelevant. You are probably some ignorant loser with no career aspiration and looking for more government handouts. You must be so utterly oblivious to even notice we are facing a systemic budget issues which are mostly due to uncontrolled government spending. Go read a book.

0

Iffykindofguy t1_j9pl6nl wrote

lol classic. Cant deal with facts so you have to make stuff up about me

4

Halperwire t1_j9pm07u wrote

Where are these facts about Bernie actually working as real job? I literally looked it up and found nothing. And what happened to you calling me a Fox News npc? Does that not count as making stuff up about me? Douche hypocrite

1

Iffykindofguy t1_j9pmfb1 wrote

Im not making anything up about you? youre just repeating fox news talking points. a)being a politician is a fulltime job unfortunately b) youre citing wikipedia (dumb idea alone) while also not reading because IT LITERALLY DOES SAY THAT ON HIS WIKIPEDIA:

​

After graduating from college, Sanders returned to New York City, where he worked various jobs, including Head Start teacher, psychiatric aide, and carpenter.[19]

​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders

​

So yeah, Im not making up anything about you when I say you're an npc. You contradict your ownself lmao. Broken npc.

2

Dry-Basis1304 t1_j9poqum wrote

you’re literally calling everyone who disagrees with him a Fox News NPC lol.

3

Halperwire t1_j9pra38 wrote

Apparently this person think I watch Fox News therefore facts. And right… I guess Bernie worked for a couple months part time between college and running failed campaigns. Seriously that’s stupid and not a gotcha.

5

banuk_sickness_eater t1_j9pswkz wrote

Damn, you were wrong. It happens. Learn to accept that, update, and move on. Jesus lol

−1

Iffykindofguy t1_j9ppty2 wrote

I only called one person a fox news npc? If I did it to two people I got my chains mixed up, it happens.

3

RavenWolf1 t1_j9pa1fy wrote

Yeah. If this pass then they have to start taxing using calculators, Excel etc.

4

WarAndGeese t1_ja28t3v wrote

Yes, the problem isn't that we shouldn't be doing it, the problem isn't that we haven't been doing it up until now.

Of course, it's not like we would come up with specific taxes on spreadsheet software and calculators. The financial gains from those are supposed to funnel their way down into profit that we tax, however there are such flaws in the tax structure that they aren't funneling their way down, so we aren't effectively taxing to collect some of the benefits that we get out of things like spreadsheet software and calculators.

1

wordyplayer t1_j9oweht wrote

Politicians are ignorant of common sense or fairness, they just look for creative ways to take more money. Power and Money, that is what they live for.

−3

mindbleach t1_j9p1wy0 wrote

Damn greedy politicians, robbing those poor capitalists and their hungry robot children!

7

wordyplayer t1_j9pf0ln wrote

Politicians respond to the noise from the people. So if we make enough noise on a topic, they will respond.

1

mindbleach t1_j9pfx9r wrote

And what the fuck do you want from them, if this is how you describe... giving money to people?

3

wordyplayer t1_j9pgkxh wrote

I'm responding to beambot's comment that this idea "is senseless". But politicians aren't prioritizing 'sense', they prioritize power and money. Of course they need to get Money In, or they can't run the government. But not all methods of "money in" are sensible. So, they toss stuff out and do some opinion polls and eventually make some choices. But the noise of the people does matter.

1

mindbleach t1_j9phhke wrote

You're responding to measured criticism with kneejerk blanket statements.

Stop.

3

lr89-hk t1_j9nuinu wrote

That would place the US in a very precarious position where every other country would either use this tech to get ahead or sell discounted services to the US killing domestic work. Can’t close this box now it’s open. It’s a race to who can embrace it the most the fastest now.

64

NanditoPapa t1_j9nyatm wrote

Yep. Other countries, likely China and Asian countries looking to increase their manufacturing hub, would use this to their advantage.

21

ironborn123 t1_j9o8kmo wrote

I sometimes think any legislator interested in economics and proposing an economic policy, should have run or atleast worked in a business at some point in his/her life. Good intentions are not enough for something as important as policymaking. Practical experience is equally necessary.

−4

NanditoPapa t1_j9o9ptp wrote

I WANT to agree with you...but I can't (lol). Many politicians are lawyers, but still don't seem to know how to create laws and legislation. The US recently had a "businessman" in office and he made a lot of poor policy decisions because HIS experience with business was one of corruption and kickbacks. So, while I agree there should be some sort of workshop or required class for politicians, especially when they sit on specific committees involving economics or science issues, I'm not convinced that it would help all that much. Lots of legislators have an amazing amount of information at their fingertips and they STILL choose to be stupid.

14

ironborn123 t1_j9okj2o wrote

Well he seems to have spoilt the reputation of the whole business community.

But then he wasnt a conventional businessman anyway. Extensively depended on parental wealth and connections to get him out of trouble. Was more of a media celebrity than a domain expert in anything.

History provides better examples. Truman.

0

banuk_sickness_eater t1_j9q03dz wrote

I really hope Truman isn't your choice of example for the efficacy of the businessman-President. Truman was a blithering dolt entirely unprepared and unfit for the presidency. He was failed local business owner turned pawn unwittingly wedged into his role as vice president (a role originally fitted to Henry Wallace) by the crony political muscling of Louisiana Party Boss Thomas Pendergast who wanted to reassert his Grenzsteifen by sticking his dick in FDR's birthday cake.

Truman numerous foibles and flaccid leadership directly lead to the runaway big stick foreign policy spearheaded by Secretary of State James Byrnes directly following WW-2 that so deepened the chill of Russian mistrust of American military intentions, that peripidiously billowed into the half-century long existential nightmare known as the Cold War- which humanity only recently barely survived the thawing of by the freezer burned skin of our collective balls.

2

rushmc1 t1_j9ppg5l wrote

Get outta here with that "businessman" crap. Trump killed that bad idea forever.

1

ShittyInternetAdvice t1_j9rkvm3 wrote

Most “businesspeople” aren’t really any more informed on tech matters than the average American

1

Zeikos t1_j9o3y9i wrote

More precarious than people not having the income to buy what's produced by those machines?
Yes, the race to the bottom factor is a risk, that doesn't mean that it cannot be hedged against.

8

lr89-hk t1_j9o72s7 wrote

Realistically, this won’t pass. But if they were going to do it properly they should increase taxes on sales of AI tools outside of the US. This would drive up the prices elsewhere and allow the US to stay ahead.

3

Zeikos t1_j9oltxv wrote

You mean the import of machine produced goods?
Because tools are going to be developed elsewhere, the science isn't exactly top secret.
There might be some asymmetry for some time but other economies are going to catch up.

4

visarga t1_j9p5sw4 wrote

Moving design attribution from one country to another is much easier than doing the same for physical goods. You just develop it in country A and launch it in country B, no taxes.

2

MarromBrown t1_j9oi50q wrote

oh yeah, because anarchocapitalism will surely work great

3

Solid_Anxiety8176 t1_j9oociq wrote

I feel like embracing it the most the fastest might not be sustainable long term. Definitely would suck falling behind significantly though.

1

dumpitdog t1_j9opp03 wrote

I agree but someone has to pay Caesar. The Chinese government or whatever government cannot function without public cash flow. This cash flow comes from taxes duties on produced and purchase products. We will literally be going back to the caves we don't figure out some way to fund or infrastructure or military and our government.

−2

rushmc1 t1_j9ppoou wrote

The government is a LOT better at collecting money than it is at spending it.

0

YaAbsolyutnoNikto t1_j9o8h3l wrote

Tax the profit, not the bots

63

Red-HawkEye t1_j9p6i3u wrote

Get busy living, or get busy. peep,peeep, peeeep

6

warseb t1_j9qq2m1 wrote

And make sure the tax is properly redistributed into more societal productive capacity.

2

WarAndGeese t1_j9zmvgx wrote

Can't tax profit if corporations don't post profits. There's a reason that companies focus on growth and artificially inflate expenses if they can rearrange their accounting to minimize profits.

Now, the growth that happens as result is good because it translates to more production for society, however if the tax system was better then we could already have short work schedules and UBI.

1

CommentBot01 t1_j9nk4lw wrote

Very unwise idea. Increasing corporation tax is agreeable and inevitable but tax on AI and robots will slow down technological advancement. It will drop quality of civilization and people's life. I too a left wing but I totally disagree that idea.

29

darthdiablo t1_j9nnpoj wrote

Leftist here as well, I'm more concerned about corporations pocketing all the profits and sheltering that money from the community in general.

It will be harder and harder for humans to compete with robotics & AI, so we want to ensure the bigwigs do not pocket all the revenues/profits for themselves.

38

Lawjarp2 t1_j9no2cq wrote

That's why you tax on profits not on labour itself. If you remove all the loopholes and exceptions used to hide profit it would be enough. If deflation sets in we can always print money.

22

Gotisdabest t1_j9nsq66 wrote

Yes. Much stronger taxation is the way to go, encouraging faster automation rather than discouraging it.

11

Nanaki_TV t1_j9oldxi wrote

> Yes. Much stronger taxation is the way to go,

Is this the trickle-down economics I hear about? You think these taxes will trickle down to you?

−2

Gotisdabest t1_j9olqhk wrote

That is the opposite of trickle down economics, lol.

4

Nanaki_TV t1_j9on2nk wrote

> Much stronger taxation is the way to go, encouraging faster automation rather than discouraging it.

Then how is more taxes encouraging faster automation? Why is "much stronger taxation" the solution to you? You're not going to see any of it.

−2

Gotisdabest t1_j9on8e0 wrote

>Then how is more taxes encouraging faster automation?

Since it puts pressures on productivity. Adapt or die.

>You're not going to see any of it.

I'm sure you have strong evidence to back this up. Please do provide it.

3

visarga t1_j9pbqqa wrote

> Since it puts pressures on productivity. Adapt or die.

Why do anything at all? Competition will take care of it. When the first company starts using AI and wins big, then next 100 jump on, then everyone will have to use it or be left behind. Being undercut by more AI-savvy competitors is enough pressure.

But every company will have the same GPT-5 or 10. They need to get an edge by hiring humans. So they are back where they started, but now with AI and all that new productivity will go into inflated expectations and more difficult competition.

1

Gotisdabest t1_j9pcjku wrote

>Why do anything at all?

Maybe because this way the people actually get to not starve and actually see benefits?

Regardless, a government initiative does wonders to hasten this process and prevent lethargy in the economy. Believe it or not the free market has tons of slow inefficiencies. Hastening the process artificially works quite well.

1

Nanaki_TV t1_j9oodpo wrote

> Since it puts pressures on productivity. Adapt or die.

So putting a barrier to entry will cause more pressure on an already difficult industry to be in?

>Please provide it

It's currently 9% of tax revenue.

https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/government-revenue/

That money is being spent elsewhere. The money you are receiving benefits from is from property taxes, gas tax, sin taxes, or other specific taxes like telephone tax. Sooo I backed up my claim and yet you have not.

>Much stronger taxation is the way to go, encouraging faster automation rather than discouraging it.

Back it up. Where and why do you think this?

−1

Gotisdabest t1_j9oq1c1 wrote

>So putting a barrier to entry will cause more pressure on an already difficult industry to be in?

Barrier to entry through profit? Even the extremely unqualified article you sent doesn't claim this is a barrier to entry. And what specific industry are you talking about?

>https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/government-revenue/

>That money is being spent elsewhere. The money you are receiving benefits from is from property taxes, gas tax, sin taxes, or other specific taxes like telephone tax. Sooo I backed up my claim and yet you have not.

Not only does this assume I'm American, this also seems to imply the ludicrous logic of the money going elsewhere meaning it does not contribute. If that money disappears, "elsewhere" as you put it will be where the money from other sources will be spent. Conversely, an increment will lead to an increase in benefits.

Not to mention that in a world where jobs start rapidly disappearing I'd be interested in how much income tax the government gets and how much consumer spending based taxation occurs. You only backed up a claim reliant on this bizzare idea that any government spends money like a ten year old.

>Back it up. Where and why do you think this?

I know this can be quite hard for you, but this is based on the simple logic of "high taxes decrease profit->need more profit->workers require money, increasing cost-> Invest in cheap ways to increase efficiency". Similar systems have been extremely effective in raising productivity and automation in Scandinavia, leading to a very high degree of economic and social mobility.

1

Ambiwlans t1_j9p2d8o wrote

You'll get no where debating someone that thinks taxation is trickle down econ.

1

Nanaki_TV t1_j9p2u8x wrote

>I know this can be quite hard for you

Jesus Christ your hubris man... You could be wrong and you know that right? I know I could be wrong. But I have a masters degree in economics and... what you're saying isn't even remotely true! There's no data. There's not logical reasoning behind it. You're making it harder for companies to exist by raising taxes and it increase their risks. The field (robotics and AI) will already be extremely difficult to succeed in but profits = bad to you.

0

Gotisdabest t1_j9p3p2k wrote

So now you're deflecting and trying to avoid responding on points by relying on a supposed degree as a crutch.

>You're making it harder for companies to exist by raising taxes and it increase their risks. The field (robotics and AI) will already be extremely difficult to succeed in but profits = bad to you.

So now what suddenly was a barrier to entry makes established players harder to exist? Also do point out exactly where this turned from industry in general to just the ai and robotics industry? Also it's difficult to succeed but weakening established players is bad... some real backwards logic right here. The fun part about taxing profits is that it does not add risks to anything except your bottom line.

For someone with a master's degree in economics, you cited an investipedia article which didn't even corroborate your claims. You also seemingly have trouble understanding what Trickle Down economics is. Are you sure the university didn't just scam you?

I assume you concede the point on budget since you apparently cannot reply to it at all, even with a weak deflection.

1

Nanaki_TV t1_j9p4cds wrote

> You also seemingly have trouble understanding what Trickle Down economics is.

And you don't understand jokes.

I'm not deflecting. I'm on a meeting and this is reddit. You're not willing to engage. You are just here to act smug and smart.

0

Gotisdabest t1_j9p4jt4 wrote

>I'm not deflecting. I'm on a meeting and this is reddit.

"I'm not deflecting, I'm deflecting."

>And you don't understand jokes.

Better than not understanding economics.

>You're not willing to engage.

Yes, by not deflecting and responding with points.

>You are just here to act smug and smart.

By providing points... Maybe you should have taken a couple of logic classes alongside eco degree. Might actually have helped more than your eco degree which didn't even tell you what trickle down economics is apparently.

1

Nanaki_TV t1_j9p5kfe wrote

> than your eco degree which didn't even tell you what trickle down economics is apparently.

See? That's what I mean. I started with "Is that the TDE I keep hearing about?" That was a jab. The fact that you continue to bring it up shows that you have to rely on whatever you can because you're punching up.

0

Gotisdabest t1_j9p61j7 wrote

More deflection! Someone is desperate to salvage some prestige out of this.

>That was a jab. The fact that you continue to bring it up shows that you have to reply on whatever you can because you're punching up.

I'm sorry about hurting your feelings since your economics degree being a scam must be a sore point for you, but you need to acknowledge facts to move on. Or you could reply on points. But alas, you'd need to know some economics for that. A tragic catch 22, really. I can recommend some good sources on that, excluding your favourite investopedia.

Its also pretty funny that you started a convo with what you now claim is a snide jab but accused me of being smug and not engaging.

1

Nanaki_TV t1_j9p6nl5 wrote

> to salvage some prestige out of this.

The highest honor. The prestige of a random reddit. I feel as though we are done. You can feel as though you've won the discussion, since I'm sure you need that for your ego.

0

Gotisdabest t1_j9p6xpe wrote

>The highest honor. The prestige of a random reddit.

Yes. It is quite probably the highest honor in a while for you ever since the day you got your supposed masters degree in economics which didn't teach you any economics.

Still can't answer on points though.

As for winning, i won a fair while ago when somehow tried to claim that the government getting more taxes would somehow only go "elsewhere" since they're corporate taxes and then tried to call yourself an economist of some kind.

0

Nanaki_TV t1_j9p857y wrote

> Still can't answer on points though.

When you make one I'd address it.

>somehow only go "elsewhere"

It would. You brought up how you're not American as a defense to your ignorance of how our tax code works. That's fine and reasonable. But here you are still acting smug thinking you're actually throwing insults at me.

0

Gotisdabest t1_j9p8iz3 wrote

>When you make onIte I'd address it.

I've made several which you simply ran away from. I can copy paste them if you'd like. This also is a backtrack from your previous statements which implied that you weren't willing because you were in a meeting. Now suddenly the meeting is gone but it's because I haven't been able to provide points. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, i assume you just lack the ability to read properly. I've heard American education isn't great with regards to literacy and such, and a fake economics degree probably isn't of much help.

>It would. You brought up how you're not American as a defense to your ignorance of how our tax code works. That's fine and reasonable. But here you are still acting smug thinking you're actually throwing insults at me.

Please inform me where the American tax code states that corporate taxes cannot be spent on the people and can only go "elsewhere".

0

Nanaki_TV t1_j9pbbcr wrote

> Please inform me where the American tax code states that corporate taxes cannot be spent on the people and can only go "elsewhere".

It doesn't state that in the code. In practice however... there's so many ways to avoid taxes for the big companies your head will spin. Look, what you want is for what? Let's start over and how about you start with that. BS wants to raise taxes on ""robots that take jobs"" however you would define that. Those taxes would not be spent on something like UBI or something like fixing our dumb healthcare system (or roads as I tried to tell you that's other taxes that pay for that). Instead, it would be sent to the Pentagon or other government programs that don't really help the average Joe. Meanwhile, your Mom and Pops that wants to "hire an AI" to do their copywriting will have to pay these new "AI-took-der-job Tax" on top of it their initial cost which will cause barriers to entry into whatever field that MaP Shop is in. The mega-corp will gladly pay the new tax since their economies of scale is so high it's a write off. A tax like this would hurt the very people that he is trying to help.

1

Gotisdabest t1_j9pcf6t wrote

>It doesn't state that in the code.

Okay so you were lying just before where you implied that it was my ignorance of the American tax code which stopped me from realising that corporate money will only go "elsewhere".

>there's so many ways to avoid taxes for the big companies your head will spin. Look, what you want is for what? Let's start over and how about you start with that. BS wants to raise taxes on ""robots that take jobs"" however you would define that. Those taxes would not be spent on something like UBI or something like fixing our dumb healthcare system (or roads as I tried to tell you that's other taxes that pay for that). Instead, it would be sent to the Pentagon or other government programs that don't really help the average Joe.

That's already a contradictory narrative. You claim they're avoiding taxes but also that the money would automatically go the Pentagon.

It also seems like you're trying to claim that either any budget increase will only go to the Pentagon(something that doesn't exactly agree with what you were saying before and is quite untrue) or that specifically corporate budgets make up the whole of the Pentagon budget and increase in them just means that.

Do you have any basis for any of the possible bizzare claims you're making here?

>Meanwhile, your Mom and Pops that wants to "hire an AI" to do their copywriting will have to pay these new "AI-took-der-job Tax" on top of it their initial cost which will cause barriers to entry into whatever field that MaP Shop is in.

No they won't. Because now you're lying again and trying to claim my argument is the same as Sander's when this thread started with me agreeing with a distinctly different thing to what Sanders wants.

>A tax like this would hurt the very people that he is trying to help.

By magically sending more money only to the Pentagon.

0

Nanaki_TV t1_j9pd1gd wrote

Ok... man I tried with you. I really did. But you're too "smart" man. You can't even have a conversation without acting all high and mighty. You're hostile toward anyone who may have more information than you. That's kind of messed up. But oh well. That's on you. Oh no!! I'm "deflecting!" Hahahaaha. Good luck to you in your future.

0

Gotisdabest t1_j9pda3l wrote

Lmao. You make wild claims and when asked to defend them immediately run away. Yes, you are deflecting. Because that's all you seemingly can do when someone actually questions your bizzare claims and points out obvious lies and contradictions. You provide sources which don't even support what you're saying and make statements directly contradicting what you've stated previously. When called out you proceed to deflect and whine.

0

Nanaki_TV t1_j9pfqrw wrote

Oh I defended them. You're just... no listening. Again and then insult, insult insult. I hope it makes you feel better. Not sure what's going on over in your world. Hope you're ok.

0

Gotisdabest t1_j9pfwsp wrote

>Oh I defended them.

You clearly did not. I pointed out contradictions and lies. Apparently calling them out is now insulting. Your rhetorical strategy is to provide bs claims, support them through lies and BSing through fake sources and supposed personal achievement, and when questioned specifically you immediately retreat and try to play some kind of victim.

Otherwise do tell me how my ignorance of the American tax code somehow prevented me from knowning something that's not even in the tax code. And how corporate taxes only go to the Pentagon.

0

Nanaki_TV t1_j9ph4no wrote

>I pointed out contradictions and lies.

You said "those are lies" That's not ""pointing them out." Lmao

>And how corporate taxes only go to the Pentagon.

That right there is why I don't wish to engage. I'm rereading our earlier convo and it's clear to me you don't even have a basic understand of econ. Have you even taken a class on it? You didn't know what barriers of entry was or even economies of scale. This is 101-level man. "Goes to the Pentagon" was not "100% of corp taxe money goes to the Pentagon."

I get it. You're one of those people that can't infer without

0

Gotisdabest t1_j9phuqg wrote

>That right there is why I don't wish to engag

Another contradiction. You earlier alleged i wasn't engaging, now you aren't engaging.

>You didn't know what barriers of entry was or even economies of scale.

Source on either please. I do admit to not knowing much about barriers of entry since i believe that there is no such thing in the first place. Barriers to entry, however, are something I'm quite well acquainted with and you sent an article which does not attack my point in any way. I also do not know where i disagreed with anything of yours with regards to economies of scale, so you're valiantly fighting strawmen again.

>Goes to the Pentagon" was not "100% of corp taxe money goes to the Pentagon."

So all new taxes just go to the Pentagon then. Is that your new claim. That around 3% of the US budget is secretly all of it?

And yes, I'm one of those people who can't infer without finished sentences.

0

Nanaki_TV t1_j9pimuq wrote

> So all new taxes just go to the Pentagon then. Is that your new claim. That around 3% of the US budget is secretly all of it?

.........................................

That was me hitting my forehead. I just... wow

0

Gotisdabest t1_j9pip8u wrote

More deflection!

1

Nanaki_TV t1_j9piyzh wrote

k.

0

Gotisdabest t1_j9pj0yl wrote

More deflection!

Edit- aww, someone couldn't deflect anymore so they blocked.

1

Ambiwlans t1_j9p21xt wrote

Or just tax income... that money leaves the corporation at some point.

The problem in the US is that income tax isn't progressive enough at the high end.

People making a billion a year should be taxed 99%. It isn't like making >10mil a year take home would be some sort of tragedy. You could still buy a yacht, just not one big enough to have a helipad AND a dock for smaller speed boats.

1

Nanaki_TV t1_j9pdri6 wrote

You'd have to define since income Warren Buffett "makes more than his secretary" but not on his income taxes. Hence why he pays less income taxes than his secretary. This argument was all the rage of politicians years ago and it still bothers me.

2

Ambiwlans t1_j9q8b3d wrote

Do what Canada does and just make cap gains count 50% towards income. You get brackets built in.

1

Nanaki_TV t1_j9qbfjf wrote

I’m not an accountant but my personal cap gains sent me into a higher bracket so I had to pay more taxes. This was on Bitcoin I exchanged for a Tesla. 16k I owe in taxes now. It doesn’t really make sense to me that I owe money on cap gains at all. The government wasn’t there taking the risks with me. Only once I achieve profit do they take from me. I don’t think that’s the way to do it.

1

Ambiwlans t1_j9qsmlk wrote

If you held the coins for over 1yr, you did your taxes wrong.

1

visarga t1_j9pb9wp wrote

> I'm more concerned about corporations pocketing all the profits

Apparently the AI tide raises all the boats, not just the big ones. You can install 130,000 AI models from HuggingFace today. Most datasets are open. Most papers are open.

1

Sketch123456 t1_j9no9bs wrote

I don't think we'll have any issues with technological advancement. The genies out of the bottle. Too many big players in the space now competing at an arms race. Look at how rapidly its advanced just this year alone. If anything I think its advancement will place us at a disadvantage. Rapid deployment of these A.I into the public space is already disrupting tons of major industries in such a short amount of time. With no real alternative solution in place to impede it or at the very least stagger its heavy impacts. And shelter those already in the wake of it.

6

Friskfrisktopherson t1_j9nuneo wrote

I dont think we have to worry about the speed of advancement in the near future.

3

Moist-Question t1_j9nx3fm wrote

Better taxation and also government super fund purchasing stocks on behalf of people. The public being part shareholders gain in the profits while also having a strong voice in the businesses as a shareholder.

2

enilea t1_j9o4nmk wrote

I don't see how they'll plan to get the money for UBI then. There needs to be more government revenue to make it possible.

2

TheCheesy t1_j9o0d15 wrote

Funny that an AI reddit bot gets the top comment here attempting to secure its place.

Not even that I wholly disagree. I understand the point, but it's also not too clear that will be the case.

I think if we wait on this. It will be too late to act. The growth is exponential and despite knowing this, it's still growing faster than expected. I'd give it a year or 2 before we are getting fucked by robot workers. (potentially literally too.)

1

stupefyme t1_j9np4bo wrote

Still a step backwards. I really wish each and everyone of us utilizes the power of computing to the maximum. We need to figure out how we do that without economic chaos. Need to rethink the concept of money and value

24

visarga t1_j9p6u1h wrote

If AI is so powerful it could take our jobs, maybe it is powerful enough to find useful employment for humans. Humans are resources, we are GPT-N level and salary costs are not that big. In the new economy there will be many jobs, some of them right on our level of ability/cost.

3

cannaeinvictus t1_j9raaht wrote

We don’t need employment if robots can do our jobs

3

ghomerl t1_j9ry9j8 wrote

If computing cost for AI is really high, it might be more effcient for humans to do some jobs still

1

DungeonsAndDradis t1_j9ug489 wrote

I think Human labor will be cheaper than robot labor, and we'll have Humans building the robots, and the robots doing the highly-skilled work like surgery or space station maintenance. I'm pretty sure Elysium is our exact future.

2

Savings-Juice-9517 t1_j9nq0lo wrote

Will never work, companies will just offshore the robots to countries without these taxes

21

Falkoro t1_j9nydih wrote

Then tax these products?

3

Nanaki_TV t1_j9pev1l wrote

So the money sits overseas and not returned to the US economy as the company does not want that money taxed. They'll use it to finance loans and purchases in other countries then ship products back. There's always a workaround. Let the money return to the US or better yet, don't incentivize the companies to go offshore.

1

ghostfuckbuddy t1_j9nwjcg wrote

> Penalizing businesses for transitioning to AI workers will slow the process of becoming a fully automated economy with UBI

Wouldn't this tax be one of the things that fund UBI though?

21

phriot t1_j9obwdm wrote

It depends how you implement the tax. I voted for Bernie in 2016, but he definitely wants to preserve human jobs, rather than ensure dignity and prosperity when jobs no longer make sense. IIRC, in the past he was for a jobs guarantee over a UBI, for example.

I'm not a tax or policy expert, but I assume the better way to do this would be to tax the economic output of automation systems, rather than tax companies for replacing a human worker.

7

visarga t1_j9p62fh wrote

Jobs can be created by the government by investing in public works. Win-win, make jobs, and get the improved infra.

0

phriot t1_j9pmyej wrote

I'm all for infrastructure spending. But if when we get to a point where it's like "the overall economy is so productive due to automation, that we can pay essentially the same to have a person go pursue whatever passions they may have, or have them work on an infrastructure project that will get completed whether or not humans are involved," then why force people to dig ditches, just so we can give them "a job."

In the short term, sure. Maybe a jobs guarantee will be good for displaced data entry office worker drones. But if you want to get there by forcing a company to choose a human or efficiency and a huge tax bill, and then using the tax money from the companies that choose efficiency to tell the displaced workers "You can put up these solar panels, or get nothing," then I think you're hurting both the economy and the displaced workers.

1

Nanaki_TV t1_j9pe99z wrote

> Jobs can be created by the government by

A job created by the government is a job not created by the market for a reason. If the job was needed someone with interest in the sector would have already created the job, You'd miss the opportunity for other more meaningful jobs are the resources are allocated inefficiently for this government job instead.

0

rushmc1 t1_j9ppwq8 wrote

This is a nice idea, but demonstrably untrue. There are many jobs beneficial to society that are not (sufficiently) profitable to commercial interests.

1

Nanaki_TV t1_j9pqhhs wrote

Name three.

1

Timely_Secret9569 t1_j9xq9nm wrote

Roads, trains and national parks and all the jobs needed to build and maintain them.

1

Nanaki_TV t1_j9ymmld wrote

Roads? /r/whowouldbuildtheroads Trains? Like Ohio? National Parks? Meh. Ok I’ll maybe give you that one. Maybe.

1

NanditoPapa t1_j9ny76e wrote

Yeah...I'm not sure where else anyone would plan the money to come from...

5

H0sh1z0r4 t1_j9od0f3 wrote

the reason for using AI is that although they are expensive to buy, they are cheaper in the long run since they don't need a salary. if you have to pay more taxes, then you lose the financial reason to buy the AI.

businessmen would simply stop buying, or, more likely, would simply set up their companies in a country with lower taxes.

the most efficient way to raise money for the UBI is through state-owned companies using AI

3

visarga t1_j9p69z8 wrote

In the long run cloud costs are huge. Apparently running a single box of GPT-4 for a year would cost $1.5m. How many devs can you hire instead of renting this one model instance.

https://twitter.com/transitive_bs/status/1628118163874516992

4

H0sh1z0r4 t1_j9pciu9 wrote

technology cheapens over time, cars and televisions were only for the rich in the past, and today they are popular. but if they decide to charge more taxes, the technology will not even be used enough to make it cheaper

5

ObiWanCanShowMe t1_j9oircy wrote

  1. All taxes are always passed onto consumers, no matter how they try to scheme it.
  2. Unless you are taxing each instance at the same rate of a worker, the result is still negative.
  3. Robots can take the place of more than one human.
  4. The funding never goes to where they say it going to go.
  5. Having tax and regulation that makes it harder for companies to make a profit = companies going elsewhere which lowers your tax pool and kills the remaining jobs.

But the most glaring issue with UBI is that while math isn't hard, it seems that math is really hard.

Just for giggles...

There are approximately able 200 million adults in the USA. If everyone were to get just 250.00 per week then the USA would need 2,400,000,000,000 per year. That's 2.4 with a T.

The U.S. government's total revenue is estimated to be $4.71 trillion for FY 2023

And no matter how much you whittle down the qualifiers for getting UBI, or mess with the distribution or allocation, it's still going to be 25-50% of current tax revenue. We already overspend and increase the deficit. This isn't even considering the inflation and costs of goods as companies pass the new taxes onto the consumer, so that 250 wouldn't even be worth the 250 anymore.

Who can live on 250 per week btw?

UBI is and always will be a non-starter. Because the U in UBI stands for Universal, meaning anyone who can't or doesn't want to work, gets it and don't get me started on the class warfare of requiring some to work while other do not.

−1

dayaz36 t1_j9oaxif wrote

This is monumentally stupid.

We finally have the technology to have robots take over back breaking work and menial tasks and in the process make everything insanely cheap and abundant; so we’re going to artificially make everything expensive again by taxing non-humans.

Our government is filled with a bunch
of geriatric reactionaries that are too stupid, old, and corrupt to think creatively about solving problems

13

[deleted] t1_j9ow2sb wrote

It is all bullshit and a political theater.

We will do the same thing with AI that we have done with every other technology. Absolutely nothing and let the chips fall as they may.

Power will be further consolidated, the upper class will get 10X richer. Politicians will continue to borrow money from the future until we implode or things are reset from WW3.

There is no mystery to what happens here.

9

overturf600 t1_j9ole2r wrote

Well we missed our chance to tax companies for developing business models based on the internet, and we funded that invention.

Seems reasonable to me. But I’m happy just to start charging google, Amazon, and Facebook transaction feeds instead. No reason to enable these corporate welfare moms.

−3

dayaz36 t1_j9oosrt wrote

Lol what? That made zero sense

Government has the ability right now to create government isps and give everyone free high speed internet, but they won’t because they’re corrupt.

Advocating for businesses to pay fees to use the internet is exactly the opposite point I was making

4

Nanaki_TV t1_j9pfi01 wrote

> Government has the ability right now to create government isps and give everyone free high speed internet, but they won’t because they’re corrupt.

I hate the way the government is run more than the avg bc I see it daily for my work but come on... it isn't some magical hand-wave that is preventing this from happening. Just think of how many yards would need dug up for one town to have high speed isp. And if one of the hubs go down? So now you need backups.

−1

Tiamatium t1_j9o25ob wrote

How are you going to enforce it, and measure it? For example, if I have a Linux server, it is running Cron (an agent that runs automation at specified times) and I have 1000 records in it, what/how would they be taxed? Some are literally system records, are those going to be taxed because, say, every night system cleans up old logs?

11

dakinekine t1_j9nejg7 wrote

Someone on Reddit asked this question yesterday - how does a government replace the taxes from jobs that have been replaced by AI? I think Bernie’s solution makes sense. The government needs the tax income to fund UBI and anything else. The USA is 31 trillion in debt already so this might help.
But to be honest, I don’t think becoming fully automated with UBI is ever going to be an easy or quick transition. You are talking about massive societal changes which don’t happen easily.

8

Emotional-Dust-1367 t1_j9nnm1d wrote

I’d much prefer to see a property tax. This tax will hinder advancement. We want more robots and automation, not less. A property tax is inherently progressive because rich people live in expensive places, rich industry has expensive facilities and equipment. And property tax is a tax on wealth, which if we do it right means wealth will dwindle from the upper levels of society.

4

CertainMiddle2382 t1_j9npxkq wrote

Political problems concerning reelection are managed through taxation.

Problems concerning survival are always managed through inflation…

2

Llort_Ruetama t1_j9nwvwg wrote

I think regardless the conversation about it is good, and needs to be had. How do we structure society when the workplace/career isn't a necessity for the majority of people.

8

visarga t1_j9p8p53 wrote

Maybe work won't disappear at all, it will just change. Every time we automated something, we invented whole new fields with their own companies and jobs. When AI surpasses humans in all regards, including energy costs and sourcing materials for its construction, we still have to act, to do things, we will interact with the AI to get it to do what we need. That's also work - you got to prompt it and then judge the results - are they what you wanted?

If we get the cold shoulder and can't use corporate products we would need to build our own means of production and be self reliant, that's work. But we can use lesser AIs and tech for ourselves, and we know how to do it. We just can't be separated from the means to make a living.

For now, AI can't replace any job. Programmers, writers, graphical artists, drivers - they are all still needed. AI helps here and there, but it is just a platform equally accessible to you and your competitors. You have no relative advantage today if you use AI. Just playing level. Humans are still the key for success until AI gets its act together.

0

goldygnome t1_j9oecgj wrote

Sorry, this is dumb. He means we'll but it's just an anti-innovation tax.

All this will do is cause larger companies to rig the firing process so it can't be linked to a specific piece of automation. The companies that can't escape through a loophole will struggle to compete.

8

HyonD t1_j9nn4v8 wrote

If you want to slow down the progress of techs in our lives there is no better idea. Loon at Europe my friend (Im french btw). Don't fall for "easy" solutions, even those with desirable intentions. The world is more complex than that.

7

Lawjarp2 t1_j9nnhjr wrote

Stupid idea. We will all be working forever not because we couldn't create a fully automated utopia but because an old idiot couldn't come with anything creative to solve UBI

7

bobbib14 t1_j9nsece wrote

We havetofigure something out andits goodthat Bernie is raisingthe issue

7

Equivalent-Ice-7274 t1_j9omgjt wrote

Bernie needs to retire. This would kill innovation, and put the US at a major disadvantage.

5

TheBlindIdiotGod t1_j9nkvtq wrote

I think UBI would be a better solution but that’s even less politically pragmatic.

4

green_meklar t1_j9nqzpi wrote

Don't tax robots, tax land. It's easier to levy, harder to dodge, less counterproductive, and actually pays people back for their lost jobs.

Of course, the fact that nobody understands this just goes to show how much we need AI in charge.

4

visarga t1_j9pflhu wrote

How do you deal with 100% AI companies that don't rent land anywhere? They have no human employees, or maybe just a token human.

1

Wiggly-Pig t1_j9o27tz wrote

So, if the USA is going to tax them, do they get representation too?

/s

4

Akimbo333 t1_j9ndsci wrote

I agree to an extent!

3

Tom_Lilja t1_j9nr0qm wrote

The risk of waiting to introduce UBI would be, as I see it, that the Luddites will grow uncontrollably much. Therefore, it must be introduced as soon as possible, otherwise populists will exploit the discontent that comes in the wake of unemployment.

2

Noname_FTW t1_j9o1fbz wrote

As far as I heard from people way smarter than me this ain't the correct solution to the inevitable rise in unemployment.

2

FreshSchmoooooock t1_j9o4kpy wrote

who cares about unemployment as long as we got money to fuck around?

−1

Dinky_Doge_Whisperer t1_j9otwiu wrote

“Then when unemployment is up and people are desperate”

Well, there’s your problem. An ideal solution will happen before widespread suffering is the motivator.

2

RabidHexley t1_j9oxvjl wrote

Not a plan I'd be on board with. Disincentivizes increasing efficiency/productivity, hurts competitiveness in a bad way, encourages further regulatory avoidance, and encourages maintaining human performed jobs for their own sake which I think is a detrimental mentality long-term. Tax the profits, plug loopholes, hold corporations to account, like what should be done anyways.

2

Ambiwlans t1_j9p2qru wrote

A punitive tax on technological advancement and investment?

That sure sounds good for the economy....

UBI and negative income tax is the way. Not this idiocy.

2

rthomas10 t1_j9okry3 wrote

Well, couldn't call it income tax seeing as robots don't have income. Or will they?

1

Hyznor t1_j9onz35 wrote

taxing them more is good. but not based on number of robots.

1

Black_RL t1_j9oph06 wrote

Is this retroactive?

1

Iffykindofguy t1_j9otvc2 wrote

100% absolutely needed for a UBI. This is a critical step.

1

a4mula t1_j9p1zq6 wrote

As much as I have a certain respect for Mr. Sanders.

He's not the mind that should be guiding policy. He's a dinosaur and these are the economic thoughts of the way systems did work.

That's not how they're going to continue to work.

The idea of taxation isn't one that will move forward in this new economy. No more than the ideas of supply and demand do with digital content that isn't based on renewable resources.

A new framework needs to be enacted. One in which the economic policies of supply and demand and all of the functions of that are replaced.

1

medicalheads t1_j9pd4ha wrote

Unfortunately, pictures cannot be added to Reddit comment section

1

wren42 t1_j9pqens wrote

> Then when unemployment is up and people are desperate, the socialists can purpose a UBI

This is not a pleasant transition. Expect poverty, homelessness, starvation, high suicide rate.

And if you think UBI will save you, think again. You won't be affording luxuries on UBI. Capitalists won't be sharing the fruits of automation in some utopian wonderland. You'll be scrounging to survive while the rich live that life.

1

Carl_The_Sagan t1_j9pqp05 wrote

UBI generally addresses this but the issue may be how to fund it.

It makes sense to tax something if it creates a negative externalty, or a cost on society outside the market transaction. So if you buy a gallon of oil, theres a societal cost of burning it, which makes sense to tax.

So whats the cost of automation, maybe a general sense of dread, lack of job security, maybe security concerns. If there is something there, then I'd favor a tax, otherwise UBI ftw

1

thehearingguy77 t1_j9pr2ln wrote

You talk about, ‘when people people are desperate. I think of that desperation in real human experience,ie: increased poverty, hunger, homelessness, suicide, substance abuse. Is it worth that to let nature take its course(!?) with Ai? No one who has experienced that or had to fight with their lives not to experience it would think so.

1

sunplaysbass t1_j9pyqy3 wrote

He has more near term (way past due) items to continue to hammer home.

Bernie pushed America left!

1

rocksalt131 t1_j9qcwna wrote

Totally don’t agree with this proposal.

1

mehnotsure t1_j9qfqiu wrote

Never tax innovation and human progress.

1

possiblybaldman t1_j9qkg44 wrote

why implement the ubi after everyone's poor?

1

NeonCityNights t1_j9qnuyc wrote

seems reasonable, how the f- else are we going to fund some sort of semblance of a UBI

1

LikeYouNeverHadWings t1_j9qrfs1 wrote

Yeah but then wouldnt that tax be absorbed into the cost of the product and then passed on to the individual consumer that just lost his job because of that AI?

1

Environmental-Ask982 t1_j9r7q7o wrote

Yes, never hurt the tech daddies or they won't give us the cummies and free monies and girlfriends.

​

I can't believe this luddite, trying to slow down the next stage of human evolution, I want my loli robot segs and I want it yesterday! .😤😤😤

​

You will all starve homeless in a gutter before anyone agrees to give you UBI, stop clowning yourselves.

1

modern-b1acksmith t1_j9rlqjp wrote

If we could do this on a global scale it might make sense. It sounds like what he actually wants to do is export the jobs we haven't already given away to China.... Too Germany.

1

Dalinian1 t1_j9rls30 wrote

If they are using shared infrastructure that has to be paid for somehow then they should be having some sort of tax, why not? The resources have to be paid for somehow to continue.

1

PointPsychological77 t1_j9s677p wrote

Robots will not take jobs, people using AI will take some jobs. But that’s currently ok as there is record low unemployment. Idk how sustainable it will be in the future

1

Proof_Deer8426 t1_j9sct50 wrote

A UBI is not a socialist policy. It makes no change to the power structure. That’s why it’s often supported by right wing as well as supposedly left wing thinkers. With UBI power remains in the hands of the bourgeoisie, that is to say the class of ownership. The income will go straight into various rentier schemes, there will be no change to material or economic deprivation, and the people will have neither a better living standard nor more power than they had before it’s introduction. In other words, it’s a con, presented in a way that appeals to leftists who have only a superficial understanding of how power, economics and ideology really functions.

1

WarAndGeese t1_j9zm18l wrote

> Then when unemployment is up and people are desperate, the socialists can purpose a UBI.

The UBI has to happen now, not as a response. Otherwise a war could likely break out and it would be done through a revolutionary struggle in which a lot of people would die.

1

Scarlet_pot2 OP t1_ja25cx6 wrote

We probably will need the threat of a revolution for something as transformative as UBI to be implemented

1

unodewae t1_jadh4ds wrote

So I buy or build an AI... Then I have to give the government more money? yeah fuck that.

1

Svitii t1_j9o8g4o wrote

First UBI, then "robot tax" once they are well established. Otherwise we just inevitably cripple our innovation

0

l1lym t1_j9oi7yd wrote

AI will eventually replace the need for college, thus removing a barrier between the poor and the rich, access to education.

0

Odeeum t1_j9p4wsf wrote

This is the obvious path to sustain humanity...there's the other path of course where wealth continues to accumulate into fewer and fewer hands...but it doesn't end well for those that own the robots.

0

CertainMiddle2382 t1_j9nom4g wrote

Hopefully communists in China will make ideas of communists in the USA, unworkable.

But some are engineers, and the others, not so much…

−1