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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.

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?


Nanaki_TV t1_j9f3k74 wrote

We know. You're avoiding the failures of your own life so much you hope that the singularity will solve them. It won't and you need to stop hoping for it to. It could be generations away so you need to get your act together now. Else you might not make it to the party or be allowed in.