The technological race among industry giants and the wave of layoffs they have announced has revived the debate about the advisability of taxing automation
      • danc4498@lemmy.worldEnglish
        9·
        1 month ago

        I’m honestly fine with companies not paying taxes so long as their profits are being spent on people in lower tax brackets.

        Current tax structure makes it easy for the company to just give all their profits to their executives.

        70% tax on income over $1 million. Go back to a progressive tax structure for company profits. Not sure why my local donut shop is paying the same rate as Microsoft.

      • cv_octavio@piefed.caEnglish
        3·
        1 month ago

        But corporations are people, and people pay taxes. So yes, you will be doing that here.

    • mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      163·
      1 month ago

      Tax productivity, not work. Worker productivity has skyrocketed in the past few decades, but taxes have remained constant. So the rich have been able to extract increasing amounts of productivity, while paying proportionally less and less in taxes. Meanwhile, worker wages have remained stagnant, meaning their productivity has gone up but they’re still being paid (and taxed) the same.

      Wealth taxes should still absolutely be a thing, but they should be entirely divorced from a work (productivity) tax.

  • canofcam@lemmy.worldEnglish
    48·
    1 month ago

    The answer to this post, and almost everything, is to tax the wealthy.

    AI is not ruining anything. The people in control of it are.

    • Washedupcynic@lemmy.caEnglish
      9·
      1 month ago

      The answer to this post, and almost everything, is to tax the wealthy. AI is not ruining anything. The people in control of it are.

      This is the correct take, right here. Per the article, ““The trend toward automation and AI could lead to a decrease in tax revenues. In the United States, for example, about 85% of federal tax revenue comes from labor income, says Sanjay Patnaik, director of the Center for Regulation and Markets at the Brookings Institution,” It’s the working plebs that are carrying the majority of the tax burden.

      The rich can pay there fair share, or we can grind them up and feed the slush into a reverse osmosis machine during the water wars.

  • Doomsider@lemmy.worldEnglish
    231·
    1 month ago

    Because AI is a disruptive technology we should require 40% of gross profits be put into a fund to address its negative externalities.

    • brucethemoose@lemmy.worldEnglish
      13·
      1 month ago

      Joke’s on you.

      They don’t actually make any money. Not unless their a monopoly that’s captured regulators anyway.

    • lemmy_outta_here@lemmy.worldEnglish
      41·
      1 month ago

      Better yet: nationalize the AI companies. Make AI like water supply or fire service - a public utility. My government is VERY far from perfect, but even a country with any semblance of democracy has a better chance of making AI safe and useful to all than a greedy corporation. That way the training data and model parameters can be opened to public scrutiny.

      • Ledivin@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        1 month ago

        I definitely want my complete incorruptible government to be in charge of the training and maintenance of the national knowledge repository, this sounds like a great idea with no chance of negative results.

        At least Google just wants to steal and sell your data. Trump actively wants you to suffer.

  • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.worldEnglish
    22·
    1 month ago

    Why should AI have to pay taxes when we have an ever increasing pool of poors, thanks in large part to AI taking their jobs, to increase the taxes on… in order to fund AI and to give tax breaks to the trillionaires?

    and because there is inevitably going to be someone who fails to understand sarcasm, the heaviest of /s

  • framsanon@europe.pubEnglish
    15·
    1 month ago

    If AI “destroys” jobs, then AI should not only pay taxes, but also contribute to health insurance, unemployment insurance and pension schemes. It doesn’t matter who ultimately pays. However, I would hold employers accountable, because they are the ones who are laying off employees in favour of AI.

  • SabinStargem@lemmy.todayEnglish
    14·
    1 month ago

    Of course it should. An industry run by AI, still needs roads and other public goods. Furthermore, the taxes can go towards UBI, allowing people to help guide the economy with their dollars and to ensure their personal wellbeing.

    The big question is when do we remove human CEOs, and use their incomes for the common good?

    • andallthat@lemmy.worldEnglish
      11·
      1 month ago

      Not an expert at all, but I think to an extent this already happens with the current system in most countries, and it would probably need to be done much more now. Not that Automation pays more taxes, but that having employees generally qualifies companies for tax breaks.

      For instance, when Amazon said “we’re going to open a new HQ”, Cities and States tripped over themselves to try and give them the largest tax breaks. But that was under the assumption that the HQ would give jobs to tens of thousand of people, not to 5 data scientist and a massive, energy-hungry data center.

  • anothermember@feddit.ukEnglish
    134·
    1 month ago

    This kind of anthropomorphisation is bad, it shows a lack of understanding of the technology, it’s a terrible idea.

  • skozzii@lemmy.caEnglish
    8·
    1 month ago

    I think we should just let the billionaires have all of it, they seem to be the ones that need it the most.