Submitted by Scarlet_pot2 t3_119p5js in singularity
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nanaki_TV t1_j9pqhhs wrote
Name three.
Timely_Secret9569 t1_j9xq9nm wrote
Roads, trains and national parks and all the jobs needed to build and maintain them.
Nanaki_TV t1_j9ymmld wrote
Roads? /r/whowouldbuildtheroads Trains? Like Ohio? National Parks? Meh. Ok I’ll maybe give you that one. Maybe.
NanditoPapa t1_j9ny76e wrote
Yeah...I'm not sure where else anyone would plan the money to come from...
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
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
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
ObiWanCanShowMe t1_j9oircy wrote
- All taxes are always passed onto consumers, no matter how they try to scheme it.
- Unless you are taxing each instance at the same rate of a worker, the result is still negative.
- Robots can take the place of more than one human.
- The funding never goes to where they say it going to go.
- 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.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments