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

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
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.

I made no personal or editorial suggestions. I reported what is on the table and being discussed in US and international Board Rooms. ...Perhaps you could write the CEOs who back that recommendation with your questions.

a reply to: ausername

...Interesting times ahead.

Indeed.

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
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

In the 50s people had far more purchasing power as well. Minimum wage in 1955 had the same purchasing power that $25/hour has today. Their minimum wage was on par with our median wage in terms of what it could buy you. People could afford to pay taxes back then. That's also back in the days where most women didn't work, so the men who did had a higher financial burden to cover.

These issues existed back then too though. Even cartoons like the Jetsons talked about it, and I've seen plenty of 1950's sci fi where the robots took all the jobs. This isn't a new issue.

a reply to: gladtobehere

Um, "gay robots"?????

a reply to: Flatfish

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. ...
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.

Oh yeah.

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

...and maybe more?

A while back I read a book called "Secret Journey To Planet Serpo" ...

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.

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

Thanks! Hadn't heard of it before. Will try to find it.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
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.

...Social engineering with a nanobot boost. Interesting take!

originally posted by: Aazadan
Something you may find interesting along these lines is what Mark Cuban recently said, www.msn.com...

Yes. Thanks! ...Is one of the bits you don't agree with?

even people with in-demand skills like computer coding could soon be displaced.

That might have been a great job a few years ago, but you might be out of work in five years, he said, citing what he called the automation of automation, where computers learn how to write software better than humans can.

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.

Agreed. My translation: The only employable people will be the 'creative thinkers' - and no, the demand will not be going up.

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

Yes, or some iteration thereof. And yes, a challenge in some countries, most certainly the US. [Just remember, the US is not the world. ]

I can only give me anecdotal impressions on this. Divorce and child support. It stopped me from making more than one child. The Mexicans that live around me currently in TX (most whom don't seem to speak any english) have so many kids you need to queue Benny Hill music when they get off the school bus. Then again, I doubt they face the same fears.

But, if every person simply got their own basic untouchable income (even a child, that the custodial parent used until 16-18) I think us white folk would begin to breed procreate again. This is said tongue in cheek with more than a hint of seriousness.

Ok, back to the original programing.

originally posted by: Aazadan
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.

a reply to: soficrow

Anything socialistic or communistic is blasphemy on these forums. People got their heads up their ass on this one. They think star-spangled corruptocracy is the only way to go.

I

RE: labor participation is only hovering around 60% right now.

originally posted by: Aazadan

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.

Is that 60% of the total population - or workforce?

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..

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..

Sweet.

Thanks for posting.

a reply to: soficrow

UBI is a great idea. It creates a baseline, but the money has to come from somewhere.

A tax on any means of production calculated by the number of jobs the technology displaces is a valid source for that money, but should not the only one. Nor should it only be for robotics, but for any means of production that has a calculable "man hours" equivalent.

This means that the government is not simply loosing the income (in tax) of all those displaced who are now below the taxation threshold, but that tax is still coming in, regardless of if those displaced have another job or not. So it is a win for the government.

The two ideas integrate.

As for a negative income tax, perhaps a UBI is easier to administer?

originally posted by: soficrow
Yes. Thanks! ...Is one of the bits you don't agree with?

Programming is part of it, the moment you automate programming you automate everything. It will effectively be the last job we automate away, because it has the ability to automate everything else. What you'll see in programming is new tools that make programming more accessible, and normal job duties involve some programming. That will reduce the wages of pure programming jobs, but that's not really a big deal.

What I see automation doing in the short to medium term across all industries isn't outright removing jobs but rather lowering the barrier to entry on them. Long term, there's going to be some serious job loss, but for most positions what you're going to see is complex job functions simplified enabling more people to do the work. That in turn lowers wages, but also removes the barrier to entry education creates, which ultimately means more accessible jobs.

originally posted by: Apollumi
But, if every person simply got their own basic untouchable income (even a child, that the custodial parent used until 16-18) I think us white folk would begin to breed procreate again. This is said tongue in cheek with more than a hint of seriousness.

The lack of reproducing is worldwide, it's not a US culture only thing like your illegal immigration reasons would suggest. Just about all of Europe is having problems, Japan is having major problems, the US is having problems, Canada is having problems, and the list goes on. People simply have better things to do than raise children. Those who do have children are having fewer, and later in life (particularly on the female side of things).

originally posted by: soficrow
Is that 60% of the total population - or workforce?

The labor force participation rate uses the percent of the total population (I think it only counts those who are 16+). Once you include stay at home parents, unemployed, retired, disabled, students, and so on though the percent drops quite a bit. Since the statistic started being kept it has never gone above 70%, and almost never below 60%.

I think the U6 unemployment rate is the better number to track. It looks only at those who should be working, but also takes into account underemployment. Contrasted with the U3 rate which is the one we all know so well as being more heavily manipulated. The U6 rate only first started being tracked in 1994. You can see it here www.macrotrends.net...

Things are actually looking up on the unemployment front. It's more an issue of compensation, stagnant wages are taking their toll on most households.

a reply to: soficrow

The answer is culture. Pay people for producing quality art. Pay people for being good at and playing sports. There's lots of activities that we can pay people to do.

Having all manufacturing done by robots is no different than having EZ-Pass collect tolls.

People are like flowers. People are snowflakes. Quality culture is the answer.

a reply to: soficrow

I did not mean "you, soficrow". I meant you in a nonspecific manner: "you can't throw a rock without it landing somewhere."

This is what I meant:
Are the bots going to own themselves? (rhetorical question / implies idiotic idea)

Is the idea of taxing bots a means of reducing taxes elsewhere? (genuine question / looking for reasoning)

Why would anyone suggest a switch to taxing equipment, when income tax already covers wealth redistribution? (rhetorical question / implies idiotic idea)

I think income tax already covers taxation: bots do not make income - people make income using bots.

Robot Taxes (Sounds like an unpublished Asimov!)- To me, that is silly. Who gets to determine if you, as a business owner, should do something by hand or by machine and tax you more if you don't hire an employee to do it? What a way to stifle business. The taxes would have to be repressive to be effective at encouraging hiring vs automating. Some businesses can only turn a profit WITH automation. When companies start turning to automation, it is usually a sign that they are trying to survive. Companies don't intentionally alienate the very people they serve, it's not good business. This will just drive bigger business away and prevent smaller ones from forming. That's not how you improve employment and income numbers.

More and more it seems there is a war against business in the US.

IMO, this would invite just more huge Gov spending on committees and panels for our useless talking heads to research and discuss this. The legal hurdles will inevitably be immense. Maybe that will increase demand for Attorneys! (Now there's a profession ripe for automation!)

Just for thought, one business that comes to mind is a Hungry Howies pizza place nearby has a motorized pizza oven. Should they be taxed more because they don't have manual ovens and employ say 2 more people? It sounds silly right? At what point do you draw the line, and who gets to draw it? Most businesses already pay tangible and other taxes on their equipment so what's one more I guess.

I think anyone here advocating a NEW Government Tax should hand in their ATS Deny Ignorance badges in shame!

UBI - It'd be great! I don't see how it can possibly work in the current economic system though. IMO, I wonder how it could work when the value of our money is determined by what happens somewhere else in the world, totally out of our control. Maybe with separate Internal and External currencies it could work, but that requires systemic changes. Internal currency could be used inside the country for everything and would always be stable. Some type of arrangement would have to be made regarding the External currency and its' valuation globally.

I also wonder if one could affect the other from the standpoint of since our money is debt, bonds are sold to fund operations that are backed by future production. If a large portion of our debt becomes non productive debt due to automation, ie: funding UBI, could it reduce the value of said bonds as less real production backs them?

The robot taxes notion violates basic conservation of energy laws. i.e., you are wanting to get more out than is taken in.

The solution isn't to succumb to automation and slowly turn into vegetables. The solution is to break open new markets. It'll take government efforts to get us into space I think. But once we begin trying to monetize space, new markets open and the conomy can grow again.

Most money does enter the tax system at some points.

You have VAT/Sales tax at whatever %, taxes on fuel/wages, then corporation taxes and all the other that seem to exist to cream off a little more money so i'd imagine by the time its worked out it probably would not require much state effort especially when you consider how much it costs for all sorts of different projects and welfare things.

It could actually boost jobs as people will feel a bit richer and thus go out and spend it such as a restaurant meal and thus they need to recruit an extra chef and waiter.

The real problem is going to be getting it started as it will take a while for it to get set up.

a reply to: soficrow

I've been worried about this for the last year or so. This will have a huge negative impact on the US economy as fewer are actually employed and able to buy anything. AI driven automation is going to displace millions of workers.

Worst part of this is that we all know the gov't isn't up to handling this problem. By the time they realize there's a problem, tens of millions will be homeless, starving in the streets.

One thing most people don't get is that this problem is already having a huge impact on the restaurant industry. Restaurants like Buffalo Wild Wings and Texas Roadhouse have reported terrible numbers for the 4th Quarter, 2016.

Another "industry" that is being affected is higher education. More and more people are realizing that any degree they get today will be obsolete by the time they graduate.

We are definitely in for a very rough ride.

originally posted by: Apollumi
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.

UBI will not stop or prevent poverty. It will not stop people from spending their monthly handout on booze and video games and then starving. Giving people free homes will not stop them from trashing it and ignoring repairs and just generally being stupid.

There are so many gaps in this theory I don't even know why it's discussed. What are some of your thoughts on these?