I agree to an extent!

Someone on Reddit asked this question yesterday - how does a government replace the taxes from jobs that have been replaced by AI?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.

[deleted]

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

Political problems concerning reelection are managed through taxation.

Problems concerning survival are always managed through inflation…

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

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.

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.

We havetofigure something out andits goodthat Bernie is raisingthe issue

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

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.

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

> 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?

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.

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.

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

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

[deleted]

Then tax these products?

Luddites won’t result from UBI. Luddites will be the result of not having UBI.

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.)

Great! I clearly misread the comment.

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

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?

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

/s

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.

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.

[removed]

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

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.

[removed]

With lots of practically free drugs to take

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.

[removed]

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

Tax the profit, not the bots

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.

[removed]

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.

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

This would be a way to fund UBI

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.

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

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.

oh yeah, because anarchocapitalism will surely work great

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

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.

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

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.

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

[deleted]

> 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?

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.

[removed]

That is the opposite of trickle down economics, lol.

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.

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

> 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.

>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.

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

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

> 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?

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

Is this retroactive?

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.

[removed]

>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.

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

“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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

He can consistently be a populist

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

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.

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.

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

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.

>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.

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.

> 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.

>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.

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.

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

Idiot take.

> 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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

> 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.

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.

>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.

> 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.

>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".

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.

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

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

>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.

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

>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.

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.

Unfortunately, pictures cannot be added to Reddit comment section

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.

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.

> 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.

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.

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

> 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.

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.

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.

>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.

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

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.

>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

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.

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

Stop.

>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.

> 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

More deflection!

k.

More deflection!

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

k.

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

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

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.

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.

[deleted]

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

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

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

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

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

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

> 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.

Name three.

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

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.

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.

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

stfu dickrider

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

Bernie pushed America left!

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.

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

You smell bad.

Look! I too can make puerile attacks!

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.

You dont like lavender?

Totally don’t agree with this proposal.

Never tax innovation and human progress.

why implement the ubi after everyone's poor?

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