• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Should we tax robots?

Emily's Cat said:
I assume this is sarcasm?

On the off chance that you're not attempting humor... Neither of those is a good option. That old adage of teaching a man to fish instead of giving him fish has stuck around for a reason. Giving poor people consumer goods is a short-term approach that treats the symptoms without addressing the cause. There are some elements of poverty that create a feedback loop, and at least some of the symptoms really do need to be addressed on their own before any meaningful progress can be made.

Here's my bad analogy for the day: If you show up at the ER hemorrhaging from a large cut, the most immediate need is to stop the bleeding - that's what keeps you from dying. You bind the wound, and provide IV liquids to stabilize blood pressure. But if the patient was only hemorrhaging because they were severely anemic and lacked sufficient red blood cells to properly clot, then binding and stabilization isn't going to fix the problem. You still need to treat the anemia if you want the patient to recover and become healthy.

Part of the feedback cycle of poverty has to do with things like childhood nutrition, a sense of security, and basic hygiene supplies. These are, in my opinion, some of the most immediate elements that need to be treated. Nutrition, for example, has impacts on cognitive development, ability to focus, and propensity to learn.

Longer term elements of poverty are more a matter of education and culture. Those two items aren't independent of one another - culture influences education, and education influences culture. Longer term strategies to alleviate poverty need to focus on ensuring adequate and equitable educational opportunities, and fostering a culture that values and supports learning and self-sufficiency.

[/soap box]
Click to expand...

I wouldn't put it past man at all to killing off the poor. . Man's violent history should clue you in that this could happen.

That said. It's nice to see people thinking outside the box. Kudos to you.
 
Emily's Cat said:
I assume this is sarcasm?
Click to expand...

More an argumentum ad absurdum.

When Libertarians ask: "why should I give some of my wealth to the poor?" the obvious answer is: "so that your head doesn't end up on a spike". If you want to keep your money, you have to create incentives for others not to just take it.

There has never been as little poverty as today, and the reasons are low child mortality, basic education and sufficient food. The same with crime.
We no longer life in Dickinson's time, and it would be proper for people who discuss poverty to be aware of it: letting people starve or die of cheaply preventable causes is not an option anymore.

But it is impossible to get rid of all poverty: even if we were all geniuses, there would still be a hierarchy, with some most and some least successful and in need of support despite their IQ of 150. That's how human sociology works.
After the World Wars, when too many men had died or where wounded, the top percenter couldn't afford not to let anyone capable of working work´.
But today, it make a lot of sense for companies and governments to pay people not to work: when the productivity of the great is so extremely high, the less skilled can do more harm than good in comparison.

So I'm all for paying people to stay at home and see to their basic needs, and let only those motivated and able to create do the jobs, and do them well and with passion.
And people who like their job don't need to be paid millions - only those jobs that no one wants but that need doing should be rewarded with huge salaries.
 
Last edited:
Emily's Cat said:
A progressive consumption tax is also something I support. Define items by type, cost, amount above benchmark, and tax accordingly. So basic whole unprocessed foods might have a tax of $0, but restaurant entrees might be taxed according to the bracket that their average bill cost falls into. Maybe a reasonably priced mom & pop falls into a 5% bracket, and the luxury 5-star falls into the 40% bracket.
Click to expand...

That's not how a progressive consumption tax works:

Everyone would file their income and their savings for any given year with the IRS. The difference is the spend money, i.e. consumption.
Spending less than, say, $250,000 would be tax-free, 10% for up to $500,000, 25% up to $2,000,000, 50% up to $10,000,000 and 100% for everything above. (just to give some examples)
So buying a $15,000,000 million mansion would cost an additional $15,000,000 in consumption tax.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Not really Ford knew he had large problems with labor turnover and that raising wages would reduce it. The economic argument was a post hoc rationalization for basic business decisions.
Click to expand...
Evidence?

Emily's Cat said:
1) You can work 40 hours a week to process 100 items, and get paid $5000.

--Or--

2) You can work 50 hours a week to process 200 items, and get paid $5000.

--Or--

3) You can spend 300 hours of your private time to invent a new process that will let you work 40 hours a week to process 1000 items, and get paid $5000.

Which option would you choose?
Click to expand...
You make it sound like they are equivalent. But the problem is, you choose option 3 and put yourself out of job. Why? Because the people don't want 1000 of your items every week at any price. So now you have to invent a new process every week! Take it to the logical conclusion - you invent a machine which can make anything for free. You sell one of them - after that they make themselves. Now everyone can have whatever they want without spending a dime - and the entire basis of our economic system collapses.

The truth is, we can (and do) already make far more junk than people can safely consume. We are drowning in crap and killing ourselves doing it - all just so we can keep earning money because that's the way our economy works. One way or another it has to change...

The real problem isn't wealth distribution, it's how we are producing that wealth in the first place. And in the end it's going to hurt us bad. Global Warming is destroying the environment, but we can't stop because our economies demand ever-increasing consumption. If that doesn't change soon (and it won't) it's not going to matter how the 'wealth' gets distributed, because it will all be destroyed anyway.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
when the productivity of the great is so extremely high, the less skilled can do more harm than good in comparison.

So I'm all for paying people to stay at home and see to their basic needs, and let only those motivated and able to create do the jobs, and do them well and with passion.
And people who like their job don't need to be paid millions
Click to expand...
IOW from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Communist!
 
The Great Zaganza said:
That's not how a progressive consumption tax works:

Everyone would file their income and their savings for any given year with the IRS. The difference is the spend money, i.e. consumption.
Spending less than, say, $250,000 would be tax-free, 10% for up to $500,000, 25% up to $2,000,000, 50% up to $10,000,000 and 100% for everything above. (just to give some examples)
So buying a $15,000,000 million mansion would cost an additional $15,000,000 in consumption tax.
Click to expand...

Well, that's a heck of a lot simpler than what I had in mind. I assume there would be some added complexity to allow for basic and expected costs like mortgage/rent, food, etc.? I don't think it would be reasonable to treat basic amenities as "consumption".
 
Last edited:
Roger Ramjets said:
Evidence?

You make it sound like they are equivalent. But the problem is, you choose option 3 and put yourself out of job. Why? Because the people don't want 1000 of your items every week at any price. So now you have to invent a new process every week! Take it to the logical conclusion - you invent a machine which can make anything for free. You sell one of them - after that they make themselves. Now everyone can have whatever they want without spending a dime - and the entire basis of our economic system collapses.

The truth is, we can (and do) already make far more junk than people can safely consume. We are drowning in crap and killing ourselves doing it - all just so we can keep earning money because that's the way our economy works. One way or another it has to change...

The real problem isn't wealth distribution, it's how we are producing that wealth in the first place. And in the end it's going to hurt us bad. Global Warming is destroying the environment, but we can't stop because our economies demand ever-increasing consumption. If that doesn't change soon (and it won't) it's not going to matter how the 'wealth' gets distributed, because it will all be destroyed anyway.
Click to expand...

That was a very long dodge... Interesting, but still not an answer to what I asked :(
 
The Great Zaganza said:
More an argumentum ad absurdum.

When Libertarians ask: "why should I give some of my wealth to the poor?" the obvious answer is: "so that your head doesn't end up on a spike". If you want to keep your money, you have to create incentives for others not to just take it.

There has never been as little poverty as today, and the reasons are low child mortality, basic education and sufficient food. The same with crime.
We no longer life in Dickinson's time, and it would be proper for people who discuss poverty to be aware of it: letting people starve or die of cheaply preventable causes is not an option anymore.

But it is impossible to get rid of all poverty: even if we were all geniuses, there would still be a hierarchy, with some most and some least successful and in need of support despite their IQ of 150. That's how human sociology works.
After the World Wars, when too many men had died or where wounded, the top percenter couldn't afford not to let anyone capable of working work´.
But today, it make a lot of sense for companies and governments to pay people not to work: when the productivity of the great is so extremely high, the less skilled can do more harm than good in comparison.

So I'm all for paying people to stay at home and see to their basic needs, and let only those motivated and able to create do the jobs, and do them well and with passion.
And people who like their job don't need to be paid millions - only those jobs that no one wants but that need doing should be rewarded with huge salaries.
Click to expand...
Dickinson's or Dickens' time?????
 
Emily's Cat said:
Well, that's a heck of a lot simpler than what I had in mind. I assume there would be some added complexity to allow for basic and expected costs like mortgage/rent, food, etc.? I don't think it would be reasonable to treat basic amenities as "consumption".
Click to expand...

Why not?
If you chose to spend more than $20,000/month on food and rent, then obviously you can afford a tax surcharge.
 
The simplest solution for the increase in automation would be to cut the working hours or increase the holidays. Less people doing the same work. But we´re still quite far from that, I think.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Why not?
Click to expand...
Clarification... Why not go ahead and add some complexity for basic amenities, or Why wouldn't it be reasonable treat expenditures for basic necessities as not being "consumption"?

The Great Zaganza said:
If you chose to spend more than $20,000/month on food and rent, then obviously you can afford a tax surcharge.
Click to expand...
Obviously. Am I clear in assuming that if you spend, say, $4000 a month on food and housing, that wouldn't be taxed, or would be taxed at an extremely low rate?
 
The goal of a progressive consumption tax is to encourage savings and curtail excessive spending. It's an anti-inflation method.
In my example, yearly spending of $250,000 was tax-free, but that was probably too high.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
Why would I want to listen to him? Marx was a Communist, so everything he said was an evil lie.

Not only that, but he was also one of the first Marxists! Twice as evil!

No wonder you liberals love him...
Click to expand...

He wasn't one of the first Marxists, he WAS the first.

I'm not sure how to respond.

Karl Marx is an essential read for anyone studying economics and politics. The point of my question is that Marx loved capitalism. This was no secret. He considered it responsible for society's increased wealth. He saw it ending the class societies of royalty.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
The goal of a progressive consumption tax is to encourage savings and curtail excessive spending. It's an anti-inflation method.
In my example, yearly spending of $250,000 was tax-free, but that was probably too high.
Click to expand...

That makes sense. I would say $250K is a bit high, most people don't make anywhere near that much, and the people who do are probably already investing the majority of that excess, so there'd be very little to tax. I'd ball park that it should probably be closer to around $40K or so, maybe with a modifier for family size. Might even consider a cost of living adjustment by geography.

What would you consider savings to be? Would it include investments for retirement? How would you treat interest earnings, would they just fall under capital gains taxes?
 
Emily's Cat said:
What would you consider savings to be? Would it include investments for retirement? How would you treat interest earnings, would they just fall under capital gains taxes?
Click to expand...

Savings is everything not spend - how or if it is invested is secondary.
Any income from such savings would add to the income for that year and would, if spend, be taxed.
 
Emily's Cat said:
That makes sense. I would say $250K is a bit high, most people don't make anywhere near that much, and the people who do are probably already investing the majority of that excess, so there'd be very little to tax. I'd ball park that it should probably be closer to around $40K or so, maybe with a modifier for family size. Might even consider a cost of living adjustment by geography.

What would you consider savings to be? Would it include investments for retirement? How would you treat interest earnings, would they just fall under capital gains taxes?
Click to expand...
$40k seems way too low. I was under the impression that this was to be a tax on conspicuous consumption. The middle class, or what remains of it upon implementation, should rarely see it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom