Technology

Should companies using computers in general pay a tax for it, a computer used to mean a human that calculated - computed - things by hand, after all?
But alarm clocks replaced knockeruppers, light bulbs replaced lamplighters, cars replaced coachmen, industrial robots replaced blacksmiths, we have no elevator operators, phone switch boards, traffic conductors, pin boys, link boys, ice cutters, scribes - the list of jobs made obsolete by technology during human history is massive.

Generative AI, while widespread and disruptive, is just one more to the long list.

No, but the companies using it should.

Tax wealth, not work

good luck, churches don't even pay taxes

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 a moronic take. Do we also tax tools when they make a 4 person job a 1/2 person job? This is just an ass backwards way of approaching the wealth inequality and poor working conditions issues by focusing on a tool instead of the system itself.

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

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

AI companies: "no"

No, it shouldn't. The same way as factory machines don't pay it.

When computers replaced people are computers paying taxes.

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.

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?

Seizing the means of production means pretty much exactly this, yes.

AI shouldn't pay taxes, but the companies making them should

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

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

Yes because the amount of money being generated by a small group of people and the amount of money we will need not only to support AI but also the masses of underemployed and unemployed people it will create would require it if we maintain a capitalist-ish system that relies on AI and robotics for everything.

Because here's the thing everyone seems to get wrong. Money isn't like firewood, that's something the establishment want people to believe so they can excuse defunding healthcare to fund subsidies for their friends. Money is like electricity. On it's own sat in Scrooge McDuck's Moneypit it has no value, but when it's spent, that's when it creates value.

That's why small businesses are better for the economy than big ones, because when you spend a tenner at a small business, it's more likely to be spent right afterwards, for example, to pay their workers, who then pays the babysitter, who then pays the take out who then pays the supplier. That tenner was spent five times and thus created £50 worth of value, whereas if you just spent it at your local Tesco, chances are that tenner goes to the CEO's bank balance and stays there, not creating any value. Money that isn't being spent is money that doesn't create value. Billionaires aren't billionaires because they make money by working hard, they horde money by using a small amount of their stash to collect even more money, and that money doesn't get used. This is why Trickle Down Economics doesn't work and never will because it takes money out the system.

Now when the amount of money being spent in an economy is low to the point that ventures can't operate properly, that's called a recession. It's why central banks and governments try to get the economy going by putting some of it's own money into the system a bit like trying to get a power grid back online in a Black Start. If the "energy" in an economy is being horded in the bank accounts of an evershrinking collection of people rather than being put into the economy, well, eventually, we're gonna have an economic blackout (recession). This is why Billionaires are terrible for the economy, because they take money out of the economy and keep it for themselves, producing a net loss to the system. If there's less money in the system, there's less value being created.

The Solution? Piñata economics! Make the billionaires put money into the economy to the economy doesn't shut down. Now the Billionaires and their allies have overthrown nations for suggesting they pay a little bit more Tax because they use money as a way to control people and maintain power over their countries and/or interests. This is why Capitalism is more a Political system than an Economic one. The solution, me thinks, would be to turn to the billionaires and say "You can only a maximum of £1 billion in your bank account, if you make £100 billion, that year, you will have to spend £99 Billion. If you still have over £1 Billion in your bank account, we take everything above a billion so you end up with £1 Billion again so we can spend it on things like infrastructure."

If the Billionaire doesn't want to give their money to the government, they can give it to charity or spend it on whatever they want. If they spend it, it creates value (which is good for the economy), if they give it to charity, those charities will spend it on good works, which is good for both society and the economy. They could spend it on their business (which will create jobs and thus, value) but if they don't, let's say they have £2.2 Billion in their accounts, the government gets £1.1 Billion to spend of infrastructure projects, healthcare, and Welfare, all of which will help the economy because Infrastructure allows for economic activities, Healthcare means people can create value and people on Welfare can buy things like food and shelter which, guess what, creates value because they're spending money.

If billionaires are going to make money without employing humans and thus, take more money out of the economy, they should pay more in taxes so the bloody economy doesn't grind to a halt.

AI will have wage?

AI. Is huge capital investments. Just tax the wealth. Any fortune over 10 million has to pay 4% of the gross total per year.

If AI replaces workers then capitalism is no longer possible. What's the next step here?

The current tech brings a modest productivity increase when used correctly, but it isn’t really taking anyone’s jobs. Articles like this that support the fraudster’s false claim that it will are part of the problem. No, don’t tax AI, just don’t use taxpayer money to bail these fuckers out when the bubble pops.

Dumb article.

Good luck with that..

If you have a robot vacuum, should you pay it minimum wage? I think this is what the argument you bring up