Submitted by Scarlet_pot2 t3_119p5js in singularity
Gotisdabest t1_j9on8e0 wrote
Reply to comment by Nanaki_TV in Bernie Sanders proposes taxes on robots that take jobs by Scarlet_pot2
>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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Ambiwlans t1_j9p2d8o wrote
You'll get no where debating someone that thinks taxation is trickle down econ.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
Gotisdabest t1_j9pip8u wrote
More deflection!
Nanaki_TV t1_j9piyzh wrote
k.
Gotisdabest t1_j9pj0yl wrote
More deflection!
Edit- aww, someone couldn't deflect anymore so they blocked.
Nanaki_TV t1_j9pj3ao wrote
k.
Timely_Secret9569 t1_j9xtdfo wrote
That was a fun read. You literally had no argument.
Nanaki_TV t1_j9ymob0 wrote
Oh stfu
Timely_Secret9569 t1_j9xtefh wrote
Yeah. That guy has no argument.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments