It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A tax on over automized companies?

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 04:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sagitaris
a reply to: prisoneronashipoffools

do you think tax on companies will be the ticket to encourage government spending so government can implement social programs to sustain citizens?




Thank you for the question.

Unfortunately I do not, for three reasons.

1. The corporations will never allow the government to tax them to fund welfare programs for the people. If you look back at the course of politics and policies of the US government for the last thirty years definitely and even before that, they have bent over backwards to please the corporations. That is how we got policies like NAFTA and GTA in the first place, not because it really helped the American people, the American economy or the American government, but because it helped corporations get access to extremely cheap labor through outsourcing. Add to that the many tax loopholes in the tax law and even tax havens, it is obvious that corporations are pulling the strings and not the government and they will not allow such a tax scheme to be implemented.

2. If such a tax scheme in some miraculous way were implemented, the government would siphon off the money collected and spend it on a million things other then helping the people. Much like they have done with the current welfare programs like social security and etc.

3. I also think advancing AI and technology is going to eventually reshape the way our entire world functions to such a degree that there is a point somewhere in the future where the current economic structure that relies solely on money as means of motivation and control will no longer function. I am not the only one that thinks this either. There are more then a few brilliant scientists with much more powerful minds then mine that have also foreseen the coming of just such a future and some of them are already trying to figure out what types of systems will replace the current economic systems to motivate the people and to steer the course of the world, when the current system collapses.

I can understand the merit of your idea, but personally and for the above reasons, I don't think a tax on corporations is or will be the answer to the problem.

Just my opinion though.


edit on 6-10-2014 by prisoneronashipoffools because: typo




posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 05:52 AM
link   
to tax companies for automating would be like taxing companies for investing in their first computer or taxing the car makers. ya it would have saves the heartbreak of carriage drivers losing their jobs but would we still be traveling by horse and buggy if they had done that and would we be sitting in front of our nice little pc if they taxed those who are first to take on those new innovative ideas and run with them?

the problem is that society has been geared so strongly that hard work is such a virtue. We put so much value on a person dependent on how "hard" they work or what kind of work they do. This causes us to fear the robotics age since well if the machines can do what I do well I will lose my value to society. The innovations make life easier to live and we don't have to work as hard as our ancestors did but since we value "hard work" so much it causes us to value ourselves less and less.

Personally I like the idea of a minimum income that provides the basic needs with maybe a little extra spending money. I mean the economists and corporations will tell you that they like lots of unemployed people and one of their biggest nightmares would be a 0 unemployment rate since that would drive up the cost of labor considerably!
Our economy needs people unemployed and if we just caste them aside and let them starve to death the economy would just arrange it (through higher labor costs) so that they would be replaced by more unemployed. So since we need them just like we need those low wage workers it's society's responsibility to see that they have a means to survive. A minimum income given to all would through one gov't agency would cut the costs or running all those separate programs since it would require far fewer people (could be automates and require just a couple).. It would also eliminate the possibility that the gov't will be taking money from one poor starving souls to feed another poor starving soul that is just found more "worthy" in the gov'ts eyes because they are a women or an immigrant, or has a child, whatever. And, since it's the starting income that everyone receives it would enable companies to reduce their labor costs because the people's basic needs would have already been taken care of. I do feel that it is the company's responsibility to provide their employees with the funds for these basic needs but it's obvious that they don't and would prefer the gov't do this and well many people don't feel that this should be the companies burden either so well considering that the people are fullfilling a need that society has SOMEONE HAS TO!!!
And that someone should never be the person who is avoiding eating more than once every couple days to make sure that their family is fed!!
If the gov't would stop protecting the petro dollar and keeping this country in wars it can't afford.
IF they'd stop protecting us from ourselves through the homeland security insanity (have you noticed that homeland security isn't calling for them to stop the flow of people coming in from countries with the ebola outbreaks. Why do you think that is???)
If they took the social security, the welfare, the hud, food stamps, wic, medicaid/medicare ect and eliminated them and streamlined it into one program..
They would come up with much of the money that they would need to provide this minimum income.
And if they would eliminate all the tax loopholes and discourage the offshore accounts.
Then the businesses could pay their employees less since well they are only paying for their employees wants and not needs that extra money could go to invensting into that robotic world or well could be considered profit and taxable.
which would give the gov't more money in it's coffers. It's probably not gonna cost that much more than the joke of a system they have now..
We will always need some people working I think I don't think there is a way around it. But at least those who can't find a job will be taken care of and maybe those who just don't want to work the kinds of jobs that are available or who don't qualify for them can find something more constructive to do with their time- like go and learn new skills for the jobs that are available or find a new and innovated way to do something.
But 0 unemployment is detrimental to an economy and therefore unemployed people are needed. We also need people doing many of those low paid jobs out there. And that is your two choices- either the gov't pays for their keep or the employers do. If every working aged person went out and got a good paying job it would destroy this economy just as fast as having a workforce of low paid workers with no extra cash to buy all those nice gadgets on the store shelves. But everyone needs the basics- housing food health care ect..
automation isn't the problem and shouldn't be discouraged it's our thought processes that are the problem! many of the unemployed are contributing to society- senior citizens volunteer quite often, and mothers are some of the hardest workers in the world. If just that as a society we tend to value the wrong things the wrong people.



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 12:33 PM
link   
A tax on automation? No. Automation and the associated productivity increases mean that less work needs to be done, which means all we need to do is change the work week.



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: prisoneronashipoffools, dawnstar

you make some valid points. corporations will not lobby for a tax on what makes them efficient and competitive, however it still doesnt change the fact that we as a society are perfecting our work load so that we dont need as many people and very soon we will need to make changes in the way corporations affect society.

and the only entity that can affect corporations is government.

changing the work week still deprives society of the profits that corporations swallow. the only way profits can be returned to society is with a tax by the government. unless that happens all the profit get focused to a select few rather than the economy(society).



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Here we go again,

I will begin with the usual assertion I hear in regards to the impact of these, soon to be real, “future-tech jobs", which contrary to beliefs of some, includes the trades and related "proprietary tech" that will not be repairable, only "replaceable by a certified/licensed tech".

“Someone has to get paid to fix the robots!”

I often hear this above noted rebuttal to mass automation in the workplace.

I believe “rich kid” job mobility is going to be a bigger problem for regular folks, beyond even what the previous "rich kid" pedigree typically brought in the 20th century. This unfettered access to endless money and time to “explore” academics and hands-on work with no consequences, is going to END job mobility of any kind for the lower and middle classes, even those whom have met the typical required higher education and work experience standards. Its going to be a superstar only job market with no room for middle of road folks.

Keeping up with the basics in terms of education and on-the-job work skills won’t be enough for jobs requiring future tech, labor market, skill-sets (i.e. robot repair). The poor and even the middle class (not the upper middle class) will simply NOT be able to keep up with the skill demands for future employment, REQUIRED CERTIFICATIONS, STATE LICENSING, etc, while earning wages AND keeping a roof over their heads. In the future these very high costs skills needed to stay “relevant” in ALL labor markets, will only be affordable to the rich, or at the very least, to VERY far forward thinking middle class families, willing to sacrifice everything financially to keep their offspring competitive in the larger job market.

With big business being hell bent on replacing living workers with machines, such a comment misses a subtle point that ONLY the children of the wealthy will have the opportunity to become TRUE experts in such fields. Let me clarify, through the prior 20th century, a poor kid who studied hard could become a lawyer, engineer, accountant, even a doctor sometimes with the right combination of hard work, savings, scholarships, family support, etc, OR they simply went into the trades and learned on the job WITH pay. HOWEVER, in engineering and technician curriculum’s today, times are changing, which now favors kids whom have access to expensive software and hardware to “experiment” with and “practice” on before entering college or a particular training program. So when they finally get to college or to their first apprenticeship, those whom have had lots of free time to “play” with robotics and programming, outside of the classroom, WILL CERTAINLY outpace their less privileged peer, who flips burgers part-time, to pay rent and school expenses.

Many people generally do not bother to ask themselves, would future robotics consulting companies prefer to hire low work-experienced graduates, whom have demonstrated HANDS-ON, non-professional robotics experience, in the form of a “hobby portfolio”; OR a graduate with no “hobby portfolio” experience, whom worked hard to graduate with a difficult major, but didn’t have as much free time to develop skills specifically related to their major and instead having a long list of work experience, flipping burgers etc, unrelated to their major? I’m seeing this already happening in many different engineering fields, where the young workers being hired today are from wealthy families and great colleges, while at the same time being trained by older folks whom were NOT necessarily as privileged in their youth, but got through school the 20th century way and were trained on the job, while paid, over long periods of time. This certainly is no longer an option in 2014 and on because companies would prefer to churn experienced staff from other companies, rather than train fresh graduates in-house.

Before 1990, 40% of teenagers had part-time jobs while in school. This is a relevant statistic because today only 20% of teenagers in school have part-time jobs. Teens at one time made up a sizable portion of the workforce and such had changed dramtically in current employment practices.

Although not my primary point, I do think there is plenty of evidence that teens today do not have the opportunity to get part-time jobs, BUT the wealthy ones are beginning to develop advanced skill-sets that COULD be MORE helpful in their future adult careers, than say, “working at a taco stand after school”. Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg are very good examples of people who made use of their free time and access to money, without having to EVER labor for pay, to develop specialized skills that could not be learned at a MINDLESS part-time job or even in formal schooling. In the end, they leveraged that free time learning, into long term careers.

Here is a modern example of a company with a big contract to fill and absolutely no "will" to increase wages to attract experience personnel, nor the desire to train inexperienced ones the job. Instead they put out a story on the web bellyaching:

bridgemi.com...

In the link below this paragraph I have posted an example of what I believe to be a young person, from a well off family, who majored in robotics at USC. She doesn’t appear to have had an unrelated part-time job to her major, while in college. She also seem to have had lots time to “experiment” with technology in her spare time, got a masters degree back to back to the bachelors AND at the end of the day got a job offer at a University sponsored dinner party for robotics majors. NOBODY I went to college with, EVER, got a job offer at a university sponsored dinner party. In contrast I’m sure many Ivy league and top 10 school graduates do however. My point being, these future “robot repair jobs” are going to require smart kids, with desire to advance, whom also went to good schools, had lots of spare time and money to play with the tech outside of school AND got their jobs offered at dinner parties, some of which will be non-paying internships at first. These jobs will not be gotten through sending out blind jobs applications or web job boards, as was done in the 20th century. Basically what this girl is doing for Disney will in the near future be more like what a plumber or electrician of today does, EXCEPT you won’t get trained on the job, in a low-pay apprenticeship when at “entry level”. In fact to even be considered for these “future-tech jobs” in the first place you’ll need to have good academic pedigree, lots of unpaid hobby time and 1+ years of unpaid internships.

Here is her story, readers can decide for themselves, my opinion is that this is what a career for a plumber is going to look like in 15+ years:

onedublin.org...

Those whom are going to be rendered jobless by automation/robotics/tech are going to be the least likely to be able to pick up these pieces in the coming era of traditional jobs destruction. Its going to IMPOSSIBLE for the poor to go back to school, get a masters degree in robotics, in full-time only engineering programs, that strongly discourage their admitted students from taking part-time jobs, while favoring students who have both the money and free time and don’t EVER work at an unrelated job to their majors, who then buy expensive robotics hardware/software to experiment with outside of class.



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand

Hi there,

sorry to burst your bubble but haven't you heard of 3d printed houses?

It's coming one day or another in a neighborhood near you.

www.theguardian.com
Sure, there is still the need for workers in these houses but for how long?

The future is in the tech field for sure, until the day they are able to repair themselves...

Peace out
edit on 6-10-2014 by bigwig22 because: bad link



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 08:30 PM
link   
I don't think there's been a good consensus on how the world is going to handle the automation trend in regards to the economy.

en.wikipedia.org... details basic income and it has been talked about lately as a way to provide a way for citizens to live while still providing value to the country. I've followed the ideas related to BI for a few years and while it gets more talk, it's hamstrung by how feasible automation is right now.

Done right, basic income could be the idea that saves the world economy when automation really starts to kick in and you see job loss increase dramatically. If 10% or 20% unemployment is scary, 50% to 75% is even more so.

I think the economy is going to have to go to entirely new ideas and new ways of thinking before the automation trend gets more ingrained. Good thing is, smarter people than us are looking at the possibilities.



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 11:47 PM
link   
a reply to: grahag



Good thing is, smarter people than us are looking at the possibilities.

ya they are suggesting infecting everyone with Ebola with reducing the number instead of fixing the problem.. jk... maybe.."Tekmira"

back to the point which is unemployment rate. with such a high unemployment rate what would the affect of that. all i see is labor costs increasing significantly which would encourage more automation. sure some jobs would get well paid positions but unless a tax on automation is created companies will let unemployment rate soar and pay the few good wages rather than the many small wages.

government has a check and balance system and corporations need one too. its the only way for corporations to give back to society.



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 11:52 PM
link   
a reply to: boohoo

wow that was a good read my friend!!

I appreciate your point of view with the level of education required to stay competitive in this work force. I feel its very relevant and smart for those looking to go to college now to pick a degree focused on engineering or robotics like you said.

bring you to the point of this thread would you say a tax on all companies towards the ratio of people to profit be a reasonable tax to give companies the incentive to hire more rather than devote to automation?

and for others plz answer this question. ive heard companies will try to find a way around it and all i can see it becoming a non profit organization which is not a bad thing.



posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 05:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Sagitaris

we could always automate the gov't and get rid of 70% of their workforce and place of taxing the companies?
do they still use mainframes and punchcards, anyone know?



posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sagitaris
a reply to: boohoo

bring you to the point of this thread would you say a tax on all companies towards the ratio of people to profit be a reasonable tax to give companies the incentive to hire more rather than devote to automation?

and for others plz answer this question. ive heard companies will try to find a way around it and all i can see it becoming a non profit organization which is not a bad thing.


There is a way around it for companies. The prime examples being Obamacare and car insurance. What do I mean exactly?

Many forget that we now live in what "could" be considered a fascist country, with oligopolies running it behind the scenes. What usually results in this kind of situation is, the "owners of capital" will "legislate" mandatory purchases in the future, if revenue does not match their expectations or projections (for the good of the nations of course, Too-Big-to-Fail). So for example, if someone chooses not to buy uneeded goods or services, they will simply pay a "penalty" at tax time. When the "owners of capital" run out of consumer goods that they can "strongly coerce" people to buy in order to go to work, such as, gasoline, internet connection, car insurance, bus/subway fare, cell phones, suits/uniforms, soap, deodorant, razors, etc, they will simply make it law that you have to buy them, in certain quantities before tax season. You will not be allowed to be frugal in the future because the "owners of capital" will take close to the same amount back, when a person tries to save money with reduced purchases, in the form of "penalties". When someone chooses "not to buy" and then don't have the proper "coupon" to prove they bought these items, in the required quantities, when tax fillings come due, the IRS will have some way to calculate the amount "you should have purchased" (sounds a little like a college FASFA in reverse).


originally posted by: Sagitaris
back to the point which is unemployment rate. with such a high unemployment rate what would the affect of that. all i see is labor costs increasing significantly which would encourage more automation. sure some jobs would get well paid positions but unless a tax on automation is created companies will let unemployment rate soar and pay the few good wages rather than the many small wages.

government has a check and balance system and corporations need one too. its the only way for corporations to give back to society.


Up to the 1940 a person could get just about any job with an 8th grade education, but today you need a BA or Masters for entry level.

Why?

Because the government & big business figured out a long time ago that populations would certainly increase over time, but due to technology advancements, the availability of jobs would not expand to meet that population growth. There is a reason they don’t want people dropping out of high school and then at the same time, encourage those high school graduates to attend junior college, then a 4 year university and finally a Masters degree or PhD. They do so because it DECREASES the amount of people looking for full-time employment at the SAME TIME, chasing after jobs in a market that CANNOT provide employment for everyone looking for, able, qualified for and willing to work.

Look at it this way, when people could get a job with an 8th grade education, they went out and did it as soon as possible (opportunity cost). Then jobs got scarcer and the minimum requirement became a high school diploma, adding 4 more years of people NOT Looking for jobs within their cohort. Then jobs got even scarcer and the minimum became a 2 or 4 year college degree, adding an additional 2-4 years of people NOT looking for jobs within their cohort. Now jobs are really scarce and may require a Masters or PHD, adding an additional 2-7 years of people NOT looking for jobs within their cohort.

Basically the way the economy has been structured TODAY, we are looking at young people within their cohort whom are NOT looking for full-time, career type, employment for 6-15 YEARS, beyond K-12, all while they finish more school!!!

This has been done ON PURPOSE, to keep the number people seeking employment lower. In 1920 after 8th grade everyone who was able, went out to look for work and typically found it, that’s simply NOT possible today under any circumstances. Easily accessed welfare will soon add another 1-3 years of people within a cohort, to those “not seeking employment”. Not to the specific detriment of society, but to continue to mask the illusion that jobs and upward mobility are still available. So, if someone gets a graduate degree and collects 1-3 years of welfare on top of than, that’s ONE less person competing for scarce jobs. The extra years of welfare are then acting in the same way to the larger economy as the increased minimum education levels for employment. Essentially with the real goal of decreasing the number of able-bodied applicants out on the job market at the same time. This cohort of people "not pursuing full-time employment" also includes those in Prison, Government pensioners/SSI and the disabled on government assistance. If everyone needed to go out and “get a job” or “start their own business” TODAY, as many “capitalists” and "entrepreneurs" suggest these days, we would all be making 0.25 cents a day.
edit on 7-10-2014 by boohoo because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: prisoneronashipoffools
I also think advancing AI and technology is going to eventually reshape the way our entire world functions to such a degree that there is a point somewhere in the future where the current economic structure that relies solely on money as means of motivation and control will no longer function. I am not the only one that thinks this either.


never gonna happen. They need ppl to work to pay for older ppl. Taxes.

They already are nipping potential problems in the bud. Solar power is outlawed or illegal if you don't give a cut to the electricity company.

type in "Solar power is outlawed or illegal" into google for a list of examples.

Similarly there will never be free wireless handheld communication over long distances. Where the only cost is charging the battery. Never gonna happen.



posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 06:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: igor_ats
never gonna happen. They need ppl to work to pay for older ppl. Taxes.

They already are nipping potential problems in the bud. Solar power is outlawed or illegal if you don't give a cut to the electricity company.

type in "Solar power is outlawed or illegal" into google for a list of examples.

Similarly there will never be free wireless handheld communication over long distances. Where the only cost is charging the battery. Never gonna happen.


I addressed how government will solve this problem:

What usually results in this kind of situation is, the "owners of capital" will "legislate" mandatory purchases in the future, if revenue does not match their expectations or projections (for the good of the nations of course, Too-Big-to-Fail). So for example, if someone chooses not to buy unneeded goods or services, they will simply pay a "penalty" at tax time. When the "owners of capital" run out of consumer goods that they can "strongly coerce" people to buy in order to go to work, such as, gasoline, internet connection, car insurance, bus/subway fare, cell phones, suits/uniforms, soap, deodorant, razors, etc, they will simply make it law that you have to buy them, in certain quantities before tax season. You will not be allowed to be frugal in the future because the "owners of capital" will take close to the same amount back, when a person tries to save money with reduced purchases, in the form of "penalties". When someone chooses "not to buy" and then don't have the proper "coupon" to prove they bought these items, in the required quantities, when tax fillings come due, the IRS will have some way to calculate the amount "you should have purchased" (sounds a little like a college FAFSA in reverse).



posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 08:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Sagitaris

The best way to solve problems is solve them your self instead of groveling at the feet of corrupt politicians like the slave you are and enjoy being apparently.

This tax is in violation of a number of basic moral and ethical principles:
1. Stealing. Taking property without permission of the owner is wrong.
2. Trespassing. You can only find out efficiency by trespassing on private property against the wishes of the owner.
3. Invasion of privacy. Other people's business is... other people's business... not yours.
4. Slavery. Other people's job shouldn't be to slave away in a boring office for hours trying to figure out their factory efficiency to help out people you think need help.
5. Arrogance. The money has to got to support your causes. The business owners are just plain inferior to you because they are not allowed to determine how their own money should benefit charity. You could simply have them donate the money but instead you think the government will spend it ever so wisely.
6. Stupidity. Democrats, liberals, and socialists are too foolish to realize that after a certain point taxes can only destroy a country entirely. Ancient Rome is one example. USA today is another example. I don't know any socialist who thinks taxes should be higher than 35%. Yet that is the corporate tax rate now. And you want it higher. Wow, no. Obviously.

Even if it none of the above were true, its extremely expensive to measure efficiency. Your idea is not practical even if it were not entirely immoral and unethical.

If you really don't want automation to be a problem, then start a company with no automation and ask consumers who support automation-free environments to buy your products.

Either move to Pennsylvania and ally your self with the Amish or you are a total hypocrite that represents everything wrong with humanity. Seriously. Pack your bags and move tomorrow. You will actually be a solution instead of being the core problem of why society is collapsing. Instead of groveling at the feet of your masters, break your chains and live for your self. If you see a problem, fix the problem. Right now you clearly expect other people to fix it for you. So, I recommend you change your attitude starting now.



posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: wayforward

Whos mad??? ^^ this guys mad lol

hey man or girl ive only asked for intelligant conversation on this thread i didnt ask for you to bring your attitude


but for the sake of being the bigger person I will show you how to properly communicate with people you seem to need the teachings.

step one listen to ones arguement...




This tax is in violation of a number of basic moral and ethical principles:
1. Stealing. Taking property without permission of the owner is wrong.
2. Trespassing. You can only find out efficiency by trespassing on private property against the wishes of the owner.
3. Invasion of privacy. Other people's business is... other people's business... not yours.
4. Slavery. Other people's job shouldn't be to slave away in a boring office for hours trying to figure out their factory efficiency to help out people you think need help.
5. Arrogance. The money has to got to support your causes. The business owners are just plain inferior to you because they are not allowed to determine how their own money should benefit charity. You could simply have them donate the money but instead you think the government will spend it ever so wisely.
6. Stupidity. Democrats, liberals, and socialists are too foolish to realize that after a certain point taxes can only destroy a country entirely. Ancient Rome is one example. USA today is another example. I don't know any socialist who thinks taxes should be higher than 35%. Yet that is the corporate tax rate now. And you want it higher. Wow, no. Obviously.


Step 2 "calmly" express you point of view.

Thank you for bring into the equation the idea of morality in economics its an important topic cause it focuses on how we interact with each other. You made numerous points as to why a tax is not the solution to over automatized corporations.
1. Stealing. Even though your definition is correct Im not seeing how a tax is equivalent to stealing...
2. Trespassing. again good job on definition but a tax relative to the ratio of profit does not require anyone to trespass it requires corporations to provide employment numbers and profit numbers.
3. invasion of privacy. Now here i can see a point that solo or partner owned companies would be exempt from this tax, cause they wouldnt have to provide numbers of employeed or profits, becuase they are privatly owned. good job (progress)

4. Slavery. Now this one i find to be ironic, because its the corporations that provide us the means of sustaining our lives. So are we not slaves to "work"
5. Arrogance. now again this is important and morally relevant cause this tax would be to encourage Free(money or housing or healthcare) in previous posts Hellicide brought to the threads attention that free money would increase money supply which would increase inflation and cause all kinds of problems. So the idea of free housing and free healthcare was brought up to avoid inflation. It would be arrogant to assume that the tax is implemented, and not to have a solution for what the tax would go to which is why government or the president or congress which is watched by the people and voted in by the people would set in motion a law/bill to enforce this tax on ratio of employees to profit so that proceeds would go to a welfare program to maintain citizens of the given country while we evolve into a society that encourages automation.
6.Stupidity... though your topic lacks intelligent reasoning ill get to your point for you without being inappropriate. Corporate tax rate varies from 15% - 35% depending on income subject to tax of the year. now why do you think it varies? I think its because it is the balance the country needs with government and corporations so corporations give back instead of hoarding all their profits.

You choice to communicate in the format I did. Just know with respect you can influence people much more with your ideas. rather than talking from your ass.



posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 10:00 PM
link   
If you tax automation and technologies that take jobs away from the masses, guess what? The company moves to a place where the labor is cheaper. That is if they don't create that condition here in the good old USA. I see a lot of leveling the playing field. How long before you'll work for 20% of what you are used to making? If that's the only way you can eat, you'll be shoveling # for a quarter. The one's that buck are going to meet the police state they have in place.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 12:21 AM
link   
a reply to: LOSTinAMERICA




The company moves to a place where the labor is cheaper. That is if they don't create that condition here in the good old USA. I see a lot of leveling the playing field. How long before you'll work for 20% of what you are used to making?


thats a very good point. this tax would have to be implemented with every country to be effective. Otherwise they would do just that and outsource...

hmm i dont know what to think I see companies fully automatizing their work load which makes it harder for people to get jobs and like boohoo was saying its getting harder to qualify for work with needing such a high education to get the jobs...




top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join