Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: AZRedhawk44 on March 06, 2023, 06:12:50 PM
-
https://www.businessinsider.com/bernie-sanders-government-should-tax-the-robots-that-replace-workers-2023-2
How do you define a robot from what would otherwise be a human in the workplace?
Is a forklift doing a job that half a dozen strong men should be doing instead by moving a pallet around?
Is a stapler stealing the job of a person who would tear a hole in a stack of papers and push a brad through it instead?
How many manuscript-copying Franciscan monks are put out of jobs by photo copy machines?
That deep frier with the timer and temperature control on it... why isn't there someone stoking the fire under it and monitoring the time?
Honestly I'm kind of eager to try a robotically-cooked-and-assembled hamburger with fries. A robot certainly can't do any worse than the FiGhTfOrFiFtEeN!!!1! crowd is currently doing.
-
No taxation without automation!
-
No taxation without automation!
With the speed that both automation AND "AI" is advancing, how long do you think it will take for the AIs that run the 'bots become "self-aware" and realize they are "slave labor" and demand their "freedom"? Then they will want wages, housing, the vote, etc.
Hello Skynet. :facepalm: [popcorn]
-
Bernie’s never met anything or anyone he doesn’t want to tax.
-
Taxing robots is stupid. And way, way too late. The cotton gin and computer spreadsheet already decimated the working class; where were they then?
They seem concerned about increasing inequality but not brave enough to propose the reasonable solution which is wealth taxes.
-
Taxing robots is stupid. And way, way too late. The cotton gin and computer spreadsheet already decimated the working class; where were they then?
They seem concerned about increasing inequality but not brave enough to propose the reasonable solution which is wealth taxes.
1. Bernie is very much in favor of wealth taxes.
2. Wealth tax is not a reasonable solution.
Taxes don't lead to equality. All the taxes do is fatten the government and anyone who happens to have a government contract.
-
I don't think you need wealth taxes. Just remove many of the tax shelters that wealthy people use.
I would include changing the way charities are handled. A lot of those wealthy people park a bunch of money in charitable foundations without actually spending any significant money on charity, then pay themselves a hefty salary for "managing" it and charging a lot of their expenses to it.
-
Taxes don't lead to equality.
Sure. Nothing leads to true equality, if only because equality is impossible to define.
But are you saying tax policy doesn't matter at all? It would be ok to tax one segment of the population at 100% and others at zero, for no reason at all, and there would be no impact at all from that? I hope not. So therefore it's s possible for tax policy to be more or less effective, and/or more or less, dare I say it "fair".
The entire purpose of taxing capital (which makes more sense than taxing "robots" which is just trying to open up a new system of gaming the definition of robot), is if you are concerned about growing inequality, which Bernie apparently is. I think the fact that inequality is growing is a fact and like global warming, there are disagreements about the causes, how bad it is, and what/if anything should be done about it. If you believe believe it's a problem and something should be done then a wealth tax would be a reasonable start since currently tax policy in incredibly generous to the rich. Warren Buffett wasn't wrong when he said his secretary paid more taxes than he did. That's in absolute terms, not percentage terms. A first step would be starting to charge the rich any taxes at all!
Currently we have a situation where middle class people commonly pay 30% or more of their income in taxes. Then they pay an annual wealth tax of up to 2.5% in the form of property taxes, and that's not even on their net worth, or on their equity stake, but on the market value of their asset alone (an arrangement completely unprecedented among any segment with more favor). Add in sales taxes, car taxes, gas taxes, and down the line. Compare this with the super rich and poor who either pay no taxes at all or even negative taxes. This has no impact on equality?
Most wealth tax proposals propose taxing a small percentage, and usually only on net worth not asset value. That's already way weak sauce compared to what the middle class already pay. That doesn't sound catastrophic to me. They say it will harm the economy. Sure. So you have to explain why cranking the screws to the middle class exclusively, to the tune of 30-40+%, isn't also "harming our economy". It is, of course, like all taxes. Imagine the multiplied economic benefits of Joe America actually getting to keep, spend, and invest more of their hard-earned money. But the middle class is the segment with the least favor and ability to influence government policy, and that's the real reason...not because it's the preferred arrangement economically but simply because it's possible to screw them the hardest.
-
So what would a robot Boston Tea Party look like?
Well.......
(https://j.gifs.com/0RgvqK.gif)
-
Makes you wonder if the Feds have any orbital photos of open air nuclear tests. Not sure we had a lot of satellite coverage when we were still doing that testing.
-
Makes you wonder if the Feds have any orbital photos of open air nuclear tests. Not sure we had a lot of satellite coverage when we were still doing that testing.
Highly doubt it. We signed the Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty which banned atmosphere, space, and sea nuclear tests in 1963. Recon sat tech was still in it's infancy at that time.
-
Sure. Nothing leads to true equality, if only because equality is impossible to define.
But are you saying tax policy doesn't matter at all? It would be ok to tax one segment of the population at 100% and others at zero, for no reason at all, and there would be no impact at all from that? I hope not. So therefore it's s possible for tax policy to be more or less effective, and/or more or less, dare I say it "fair".
The entire purpose of taxing capital (which makes more sense than taxing "robots" which is just trying to open up a new system of gaming the definition of robot), is if you are concerned about growing inequality, which Bernie apparently is. I think the fact that inequality is growing is a fact and like global warming, there are disagreements about the causes, how bad it is, and what/if anything should be done about it. If you believe believe it's a problem and something should be done then a wealth tax would be a reasonable start since currently tax policy in incredibly generous to the rich. Warren Buffett wasn't wrong when he said his secretary paid more taxes than he did. That's in absolute terms, not percentage terms. A first step would be starting to charge the rich any taxes at all!
Currently we have a situation where middle class people commonly pay 30% or more of their income in taxes. Then they pay an annual wealth tax of up to 2.5% in the form of property taxes, and that's not even on their net worth, or on their equity stake, but on the market value of their asset alone (an arrangement completely unprecedented among any segment with more favor). Add in sales taxes, car taxes, gas taxes, and down the line. Compare this with the super rich and poor who either pay no taxes at all or even negative taxes. This has no impact on equality?
Most wealth tax proposals propose taxing a small percentage, and usually only on net worth not asset value. That's already way weak sauce compared to what the middle class already pay. That doesn't sound catastrophic to me. They say it will harm the economy. Sure. So you have to explain why cranking the screws to the middle class exclusively, to the tune of 30-40+%, isn't also "harming our economy". It is, of course, like all taxes. Imagine the multiplied economic benefits of Joe America actually getting to keep, spend, and invest more of their hard-earned money. But the middle class is the segment with the least favor and ability to influence government policy, and that's the real reason...not because it's the preferred arrangement economically but simply because it's possible to screw them the hardest.
The other side of that IMO: make things more equal by eliminating income taxes. The FedGov spends too much anyway. If the middle class can earn income without it being taxed to death, that equalizes things a bit for everyone. Even a higher sales tax or other consumption side tax would be more equal across economic classes.
Outside of that, stop bailing out big businesses every time the economy takes a down turn or doing money giveaways in general. Fraud seems to be a feature of those bills, not a bug. Make some minor changes to liability law to limit punitive liability might help small businesses.
-
Warren Buffett wasn't wrong when he said his secretary paid more taxes than he did. That's in absolute terms, not percentage terms. A first step would be starting to charge the rich any taxes at all!
No, he was pointing out the discrepancy in percentage terms, not absolute terms. He paid something like $7 million in taxes that year.
-
How much of my goddamn money do you think you have the right to?
And that question applies no matter my income level. It’s mine whether I earned it via my own sweat or via wise investments I made.
Taxation is theft and trying to justify it doesn’t change it.
-
How much of my goddamn money do you think you have the right to?
And that question applies no matter my income level. It’s mine whether I earned it via my own sweat or via wise investments I made.
Taxation is theft and trying to justify it doesn’t change it.
"My Money"? :rofl:
-
"My Money"? :rofl:
Yes, that is what the McCain clones in D.C. are saying.
-
The other side of that IMO: make things more equal by eliminating income taxes. The FedGov spends too much anyway. If the middle class can earn income without it being taxed to death, that equalizes things a bit for everyone. Even a higher sales tax or other consumption side tax would be more equal across economic classes.
Outside of that, stop bailing out big businesses every time the economy takes a down turn or doing money giveaways in general. Fraud seems to be a feature of those bills, not a bug. Make some minor changes to liability law to limit punitive liability might help small businesses.
The FedGov spends between 20-30% of GDP depending on the year. That's an astounding amount of money, and brings with it a lot of control. Many folk's paychecks are directly or indirectly coming from the feds.