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.

 

Robot taxes and universal basic income - How do we manage our automated future?

page: 1
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 04:12 PM
link   
NOTE: A 2015 study found that 45 percent of US jobs could be replaced right now by current technology.

So what do you do in a world with no jobs for billions of people? Or in the US, with no jobs for 45% of the working population? (That's what? In millions?)

And what are the unemployed and unemployable supposed to do? Starve? Die?

There are 3 "solutions" under discussion: A Universal Basic Income (UBI); robot tax; and negative income tax (about the same as UBI). But despite the writing on the wall, and the fact that few can "go back to the land," many dismiss all the solutions outright as either "Communistic" or unacceptable because they imply human rights for robots.

So, what...?


Robot taxes and universal basic income: How do we manage our automated future?

Automation and artificial intelligence are set to replace humans in a wider array of jobs than ever before, so how does society deal with it?

As more and more jobs are becoming automated, the world faces a dramatic shift in the underlying structures of its labor economies over the next 20 to 50 years. The conversation is slowly becoming more prominent in the mainstream with several major figures highlighting the problem and proposing different solutions. Elon Musk maintains that the idea of a universal basic income is the best solution, while Bill Gates advocates for a robot tax.

It's undeniable, we are entering a revolution in our labor economy. Numerous recent reports have reached some confronting conclusions as to the effects of automation and artificial intelligence on our current work force. A striking report from Oxford University in 2013 estimated that about 47 percent of the total current US work force is at risk of becoming redundant due to automation or artificial intelligence. Another study in 2015 found that 45 percent of jobs in the US right now could be replaced by currently demonstrated technologies.





posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 04:34 PM
link   
Universal Basic Income is a very smart thing. Imagine how much petty crime you would stop if people were not desperate. This is something that takes a HUGE leap of understanding to digest. We need humanity 2.0. We need to evolve and move between the stars. Something that will not happen if we continue down the existing path.

I think it is a shame that the world could be a vastly different place right now but humanity always seems to devolve when humanity a chance at something good. We only seem to be at our best when things are at their worst. Wouldn't it be nice if we just made things even better when we finally have achieved good instead of destroying it.



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: soficrow

What are the bots going to own themselves or something?

If you switch it to bot tax only then other income won't be taxed?

Why even suggest a switch? Just stay with income tax.



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: soficrow


And what are the unemployed and unemployable supposed to do? Starve? Die?

You answered your own question.



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 04:39 PM
link   
We don't, in the next 20yrs we'll see the majority of Americans out of work. Hell the labor participation is only hovering around 60% right now.



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: soficrow


 what are the unemployed and unemployable supposed to do? Starve? Die? 



Ideally yes!


Seriously, too many people too few jobs already, and they're eliminating humans with automation increasingly.

I can see how they will attempt to create a social safety net for some of this but I think ultimately for the governments, corporations, billionaires and elite of the world eventually the conversation will turn to more effective ways to control population growth and ultimately reducing human populations.

How many are too many?

In the short term, it's an excellent way to eliminate the middle class altogether, everyone not at the top will have to get by on whatever the system provides.

Either way, advances in artificial intelligence and automation are inevitable.

Interesting times ahead.



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: soficrow

Well if you want corporations to pay more in taxes, treat every robot who replaces a human as a human for tax purposes.

Make the company file tax returns for them as employees and pay income tax on what they would have made as people.

I know that's kind of ridiculous, but probably what some will try to do.

~Tenth



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: soficrow

While I don't pretend to have the answers, I definitely agree that this is a discussion that we need to be having, like yesterday. I been having this very discussion with my brother repeatedly for about a month now.

We are facing a technological revolution that will change the world more drastically than the industrial revolution did and it's coming at us like a freight train.

I suspect it's gonna take one of those "all of the above" approaches to address the societal changes that we're facing.

A while back I read a book called "Secret Journey To Planet Serpo" that claimed to be the "true" story surrounding the movie "Close Encounters Of The Third Kind."

According to the story, we exchanged some people with the ETs, (just like the scene in the movie) and that those people were taken to planet Serpo and later returned to earth.

The most interesting part of the whole book was the way their society operated on Serpo where they had already addressed some of these very issues.

While I can't describe it all here in a post, I will tell you that the book is quite thought provoking and is well worth the time taken to read it.

By the time I was through reading it, I could care less about their claims regarding it being a true story of Close Encounters, I was too intrigued by the societal structure that I was just introduced to.

It's a short read and I'd recommend it to everyone, especially now that we're facing this very dilemma.



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 04:41 PM
link   
My theory has always been, in regards to our elite masters and their designs, getting us all hooked up with neuroinvasive nanobots and turning us into the robots will be the cheaper way to go. Why build billion of electromechanical robots when theres already billions of biobots running around?

Whatevers going down, the world aint ready, yet its full ramming speed ahead.



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Something you may find interesting along these lines is what Mark Cuban recently said, www.msn.com...

I'm not really convinced with his argument though. There's a lot of reasons I could go into, but I don't want to get too off topic. Instead I'll simply say that from as near as I've been able to tell, everyone for at least the past 50 years has constantly said things along the lines of: "The job market is changing, machines will do our grunt work, what employers need are people with a focus on creative thinking and big picture ideas". I don't think it's any more true now than it was in the 70's. Automation has taken more jobs, but the demand for so called creative jobs hasn't gone up. It's just something people say to try and communicate that societies needs are changing.

A UBI is going to be unavoidable. Making it a socially acceptable system is going to be a challenge though.



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 04:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: avgguy
We don't, in the next 20yrs we'll see the majority of Americans out of work. Hell the labor participation is only hovering around 60% right now.


It has always been around 60%. The all time high for the number was in the year 2000 during a tech boom... at 67.30%. Labor force participation is not related to unemployment, though they do usually rise and fall together.



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 04:47 PM
link   
I wanted to add something that I think is vital. It has to do with our instincts. Our subconscious if you will.

What I have noticed, and it is a hard thing to see, is that people only seem to feel good if somebody is doing worse than they are. That is how they feel better about themselves and not by self determining your own contentment in life. Not by creating the you that you always wanted to be. We are so burdened by life emotionally, financially materially that we find satisfaction in knowing somebody is worse off than we are.

And the above is brought about by those so eager to control our lives as they hover just above the governments we are deluded into thinking are there to serve us, the people.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we developed the consciousness to shed off the illusions we carry. It would take a great deal of conversation and introspection to make that leap. I'll be honest, it would be ugly at first. We have always been able to do this, to chose this option, but I think we like hiding from ourselves. We are worthy and could make that choice instead of racing to WWIII.

Ahhhhh, to dream...



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Either way not enough people are working and paying taxes to support those who aren't. It's going to get ugly.



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 04:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: ausername
I can see how they will attempt to create a social safety net for some of this but I think ultimately for the governments, corporations, billionaires and elite of the world eventually the conversation will turn to more effective ways to control population growth and ultimately reducing human populations.

How many are too many?

In the short term, it's an excellent way to eliminate the middle class altogether, everyone not at the top will have to get by on whatever the system provides.


Every single developed nation already has a negative birth rate, those with growing populations are only doing so through increased immigration. As it turns out, when you have a more financially stable populace and a society full of a bunch of interesting distractions, people would rather play with those toys than pass the time by making more people.



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 04:52 PM
link   
This is not a light hearted subject that should be ignored IMO...

Alaska pays all their citizens a small percentage of their exported oil profits annually. Libya was a country that educated, provided housing, and even transportation for its' citizens before, we came, we saw and he died crowd decided to destroy the country..

All I can say is at least some very smart folks are looking at the possibilities of a country/world where there are no or few JOBS.. In a third world poor country with no jobs people have sidewalk food stands, own a business, work in bars or the sex industry..The lucky ones have land and farm to sell their produce...

Something will replace the present system, some day in the future.. But I would guess it is not going to be pretty before government issued handouts are in place..



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Wont be easy.

There will be robots protesting for their "rights"

And then there will be the counter protests...





edit on 21-2-2017 by gladtobehere because: typo



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 04:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: Aazadan

Either way not enough people are working and paying taxes to support those who aren't. It's going to get ugly.


In 1958, the labor force participation rate was at it's lowest at 58.10%. The late 50's were in the middle of what was considered our golden age. We're currently a long ways away from 1950's tax rates. Effective rates in the US are about 11% for federal, in the 50's effective rates were triple that.

The issues you're seeing today aren't with tax rates, they're with wages. Wages have stagnated or gone down, in some cases pretty significantly. As a result, even 11% today seems far more impactful than 30% did back then.



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 04:57 PM
link   
I think the really rich are removed from the plight of the growing poor segments of the population. I think the mega corporations don't really care if large segments of the population die off, because the prices they charge the rich, removed elite for simple food and services will more than cover the loss.

As an impoverished person you can buy a meal for few dollars. I've heard of meals for rich people going for thousands of dollars. Once the elite have billions and billions of dollars stashed away it doesn't matter to them anymore how much they have to pay for dinner and a hotel room.
edit on 21-2-2017 by intrptr because: spelling



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan


The issues you're seeing today aren't with tax rates, they're with wages. Wages have stagnated or gone down, in some cases pretty significantly. As a result, even 11% today seems far more impactful than 30% did back then.


I think you're missing an important component of that. A lot of the wealth in the USA is tied up in the stock market, and you don't pay 'income' tax on those profits, just capital gains tax and a few little other things.

Also, most of this money never sees the general economy because it's just recycled in the form of new financial products.

So there's a huge swath of the population who draw social services, but do not pay into them such as Medicare or Medicaid etc.

In the 50's people were paying a top tax rate of like 80% or something ludicrous like that, and they still lived mostly like kings.

~Tenth



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 04:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: 727Sky
This is not a light hearted subject that should be ignored IMO...

Alaska pays all their citizens a small percentage of their exported oil profits annually. Libya was a country that educated, provided housing, and even transportation for its' citizens before, we came, we saw and he died crowd decided to destroy the country..


This was a very common thing in ME countries before we brought them freedom. Most of them would provide free land/housing to their citizens. Sometimes only for families as they got married, other times homes for all would be a gift. Some countries still do this, Saddam for example was pretty generous with public funds.

If you ever suggested doing something similar in the US though in order to alleviate the single biggest expense a person has in their life, you would be burned at a stake. Even in some capitalist countries like Japan it's common to build a new home every 7 years or so. Land in their country is very expensive, but the homes themselves are cheap. In the US on the other hand, land is moderately priced, but homes themselves are extremely costly.




top topics



 
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join