Why a robot should pay taxes? Why everybody are scared of robots?

>>59005405
Why a computer should pay taxes? Why everybody are scared of computers?

>>59005405
Taxes are not (yet) decided by the union but by individual governments in the EU so that proposal is bullshit anyway

>>59005405
If the robot is earning an income then why not?
Issue is, robots are basically slave labor, they don't get any pay at all.

>>59005561
The fleshlight you put your dick into was made by a machine. That machine is not earning income for itself, but for the owner of fleshlight factory. That owner already is paying taxes.
Taxation is theft anyway.

>>59005584
>Taxation is theft anyway.

He says, as he starves to death because nobody will hire him because the bourgeoisie simply replaced all workers with robots.

>>59005661
If you think your tax dollars aren't theft you are a fool. A fool good sir, and I bid you good day.

>>59005704
*tibbe tibbe doo da fedoorawoo*

>>59005661
They will always pay to come in my ass, Anon.

>>59005711
*removes left gloves*
I shant tolerate a slight against my character SIR!
*whips you against the face with glove*
HMPH, that shall teach you!
*spins around, slapping you again in the face with my cape*
*storms off*

>>59005405

People just get mad when white people are unemployed.

>>59005405
Based Bill.

File: 1487452479215.gif (54KB, 350x350px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 350x350px

>>59005405
who the fuck cares what that old fart has to say

He nor Microsoft is relevant in 2017

>>59005405
I have a better idea. Bill should pay taxes and his mental gymnastics can be ignored about robots.

>>59005405
>Gates is an abolitionist
cuck

Taxation is theft. Come up with whatever mental gymnastics or virtue signaling you want, at the end of the day it's still stealing the fruits of someone's labor without their consent.

File: 1461374132981.jpg (37KB, 570x760px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 570x760px

>>59006389
>slavery is moral
>taxation is not moral

>>59005405
It's a very simple question. You have to decide if, in the future, you are more likely to own a robot, or not own a robot.

If you think you will own a robot:
- robots should not pay taxes, everyone who thinks otherwise is a dirty freedom-hating commie faggot who is too poor to understand how to invest money wisely

If you think you will not own a robot:
- robots should pay as much taxes as humanly possible, and everyone who thinks otherwise is an evil hyper-capitalist corporate shill who wants to plunge us into a cyberpunk dystopia

>>59005405
Learn English or kill yourself, you dumb fucking shit stain.

>>59005963
This is what retards actually believe.

>>59006925
When did I say that slavery is moral?

>>59005405
stupid clickbait title

>>59005405
This is actually a great idea because it offers a pragmatic solution to an impending doom.

It's a great way to properly fuel a welfare state in a time where there would otherwise be nothing left for, well, anyone and instead the money would get stuck in arbitrary company constructions

/pol/ / tax-denyers can actually just fuck off

what if 100 workers are replaced by a single huge robot
how is it's taxes calculated?

>>59005963
>literally worth more than entire multinational corporations and can't even throw his money away fast enough
>irrelevant
he's basically god at this point. he could purchase entire countries if he wanted to.

>>59005405
This is one of those basic income bullshit agenda, you see we are reaching an technological state never foretought, so our laws and economic systems won't fit in the world of tomorrow.

Since always the common folk were at mercy of someone's leadership, like a king, a feudal lord, then the bourgeoise revolution came and changed the type of leadership, now the leadership must be earned by ownership of the means of production, and not your family's bloodline.

So, for the new leadership be legitimate, profit must be made, starting then the profit based economy of today.

With the current technological progress, machinery can produce more, making the human worker a bigger expense. However if the machinery produces more and replaces human labour, how can the incomeless human consume goods and services? That's the paradox, because the bourgeoise needs profit to be a legitmate leader, but if no one buy the bourgeoise's products how they can have any profit?

And the answer is: Basic Universal Income. By providing you basic goods and services the commoners will heavly depend on the bourgeoise goverment, providing the legitimacy it needs to function.

Now dark side of it is that the bourgeoise goverment will over exploit the commoners personal liberties, after all the common man doesn't own shit, so they can't complain. And life will go in th "business as usual" way, you know nice little profit driven wars fought by the brave warrior of basic income recipients.

>>59007176
It should be taxed accordingly. The business should pay an equal tax contribution to what the payroll tax was for 100 employees

>>59007358
what if they were managed inefficiently and another factory got the same job done with only 50 workers
should the same robot in the other factory be taxed lower?

>>59007309
>small portions of the poplace are allowed to own all of the wealth and land

Gee what a genius system. Truly the Aliens will be impressed...

>>59005405
Nobody should pay taxes, you fucking commies.

>>59005561
They only steal jobs. Therefore Robot owners should be taxed and the money given to the unemployed who lost their jobs due to the robot.

capitalism was a mistake even billionaires are starting to realise it

feels good

>>59005561
Isn't this the premise of Matrix?

>>59007597
This is exactly what's going to happen. Eventually most jobs will be automated and almost everyone will be payed by automation taxes.

>>59005704
Why don't you go live in a civilization without taxes.
Oh wait.....

>>59005405
The fundamental reason why Capitolism is tolerable as it stands right now is that a producer must hire more people in order to produce more stuff. Once robotics are sufficiently advanced, that will no longer be the case. After that, civilisation has two options. Socialism (of some sort) or death. I don't care what point of view you have, that is a fairly easy choice to make.

File: 1434138555461.jpg (73KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1280x720px

>>59005405
This is guaranteed to backfire.

Any large businesses that use robots to eliminate jobs will find loopholes around the law, like they always do. The tax will then make personal robots (read: you're waifu) unobtainably expensive while doing absofuckinglutely nothing to the companies' profits.

Seems fair to me. Companies remove jobs from the country they get taxed for it and we end up with a decently funded UBI which goes back into the companies anyway. Win/win.

>>59006389
>it's still stealing the fruits of someone's labor

Those fruits are only available to them ebcause they live in a stable nation thanks to taxes paying for infrastructure, upkeep, policing, governance, etc.

>without their consent

He can quit working any time.

File: rpi1bplus2.jpg (85KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 800x533px

Because robots don't use "Windows".

>>59010340
funny, you spelled state capitalism wrong.

>>59005746

White people build and maintain society as well as invent everything, so yeah it's kind of important to keep them employed.

Ignore the misleading, sensationalist article title (I can't believe I still have to say that every single time), the kind of protectionist tax he's proposing is a fairly common thing.

>Robot should pay taxes
In other words, the company pays the tax

Nice clickbait tho

Economists already solved this non issue literally 50 years ago. Negative Income Tax. From the hand of hardcore right wing libertarians like Friedman.
You tax the wealthy, assign a minimum wage, get rid of every other social program and then you're done. It's supposed to solve the increasing wealth inequality to come with increased automation.

>>59010276
Except some people start to cry "communism!"

>>59005735
this comment painted such a nice picture. upvoted.

File: purc.jpg (98KB, 1024x756px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1024x756px

Ok, robots don't be ill, don't shit in streets, don't need cars, police and education, why should factories pay taxes for them?
"Microsoft" has changed this world. Internet has taken jobs of many authors of newspapers, magazines and workeres of movie theatres. People don't send paper letters any more because of Internet and Windows. If robots should be under taxes, then "Windows" should be under taxes as the major robot of Internet.

Companies replacing their human workforce with automated machined should pay extra taxes. That extra tax money should go to the replaced workforce.

The companies will still produce more and generate more income because said automated machines are better than labourers.

>>59005561
slave labour is not legal, robots should get salary.

>>59005704
Why are taxes theft? Can you explain it to me as if I was retarded, which I am.

>>59005405
Because if a majority of the workforce is replaced by bots, then there goes a fuck load of income tax.

I am fine with companies that use predominantly robotic workforces paying an overtax for the privilege of the savings they'll make.

>programmer talking about economics
>economist talking about programming
Why would you give this shit any attention?

>>59005704
>Why are taxes theft? Can you explain it to me as if you were retarded, which you are.

>>59006964
shut up you evil dirty hyper-capitalist freedom-hating corporate commie shill faggot

>working
>2017
>not having bought 1000s of Bitcoins in 2010
You people are pathetic.

If you want to tax robots, you should tax all machinery. A tractor or an automated print press that puts 20 workers on the farm or the newspaper-printing-place out of their jobs is fundamentally no different from whatever "a robot" is supposed to be.

Which is actually not that stupid an idea for a system in which robots/other machinery (aka capital) is privately owned (which itself is obviously fucking retarded, see http://pastebin.com/XxR1ceBG).

>>59007094
>Saying lynching, bestiality & rape is moral
>Taxation is not moral

File: robot revolution.webm (3MB, 720x306px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 720x306px

>making the robots pay taxes

>>59017124
Way to put words in my mouth to avoid the argument.

>>59005405
After that CO2 equation, I don't care what Bill has to say anymore.

>>59010276
And then the people paying automation tax s build an automated way to kill all the useless leeches that provide no value.

No one in the history of man has allowed for such a blatant leeching to occur.

File: 1474981079296.jpg (242KB, 495x600px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 495x600px

>>59007415
But then who will maintain the roads and what about teacher salaries for grade schoolers and who will make sure our water is safe? Boy, maybe taxes are necessary for a civilization to thrive.

>>59005405
Hey you first, Bill

>>59017483
Private companies build and maintain roads cheaper than government and do it in less time and actually fix the road unlike government contractors that have it under construction for months with little to no progress and way over budget. Public school is shit. Pure shit. You're better off keeping those tax dollars and putting your kid on some sort of online education or a charter school. Look at how well the government is at keeping drinking water "clean and safe". Competition from multiple private companies drives the price down and the quality up. Unlike government private companies can actually be held accountable.

File: 611[1].png (302KB, 1320x443px) Image search: [Google]

302KB, 1320x443px

>>59007415

There is nothing wrong with being unemployed. The problem lies in the system. If you are unable to get a job then obviously be paid welfare until you can. But the system offers the stick and no carrot. I say use the taxes on machine labor replacing humans to bump up the welfare state.

>>59006389
Fine, stop paying taxes. However, you'll have to stop using the services I am paying for. No roads, no police, no food that isn't grown yourself, no power, no water, none of the products that have met safety standards thanks to tax paying. You go out in the woods bare naked and make your own house and stay completely off the grid, you don't have to pay taxes because I'm not paying for your ass to sit around and use my shit.

File: 7d80cdef6aba126e27c72454641f7ba6.jpg (43KB, 564x703px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 564x703px

>>59017536
Government is held accountable by its citizens and big business is often held not accountable.
For example, it's not like private business ever knowingly sold millions of people addicting cancer medicine

>>59017778
I've been trying to stop using them, government doesn't like it when people leave their monopoly and stop being dependent on them. Roads are a good example. Try building one without the government fucking you. Food, power, and water are all easy to take care of. No police would be nice, not like they do anything other than infringe upon you. Those products would exist and be much more abundant without safety standards. Your taxes raised the cost and lowered the supply of them.

>>59017836
Lol, good luck holding the government accountable. Take Flint for example. The government has a monopoly using stolen money and no one was held accountable. Government you can't do shit (lol, corrupt people policing their own corruption, good luck). With business you can shop at a competitor (because you actually have a choice), boycott them, take them to court, etc.

>>59017385
>that hip swaying
>robots with hard hats

confused_but_also_an_erection.png

>>59018320
Nothing is keeping you from going out in the woods in an unpopulated area and doing whatever you want. Go.

>>59007342
>Most well thought comment
>0 replies
Classic 4chan

I think he has a point, though the problem really would be where is that money gonna get dumped into? If its military then fuck it don't waste the effort but if they're actually going to help citizens with healthcare or some shit make it happen, that's exactly what automation and robots are there for.

>>59018471
Some people don't want to live in the middle of nowhere.

>>59017385
sauce?

>>59005405
Because there are major economic consequences that come with robots replacing humans more prevalently in the workforce and this is one way to solve that.

I'm pretty sure taxes need no justification at all.

Chances are you already paid taxes when you bought the robot. Also on the materials they built the robots with. And when they make a profit from the robot the business pays taxes. You pay taxes over whatever fuels the robot. But you can easily think up another ten reasons and ways to tax it. Especially when to comes to environmental taxes.

I guess you can put them in a high labour tax bracket so it can pay for all the unemployed people it replaces (not sure who that might be). Robots dont need the money anyway so you can tax them all you want. They wont even complain. You know what, why not put them in the same tax bracket as Bill Gates and all the other billionaires. Oh wait they dont pay their fair amount of taxes.

>>59005584
>taxation is theft

You must be at least 18 years old to use this website.

>>59019541
Explain how taking someone's money that they worked for against their will isn't stealing.

>>59006389
>at the end of the day it's still stealing the fruits of someone's labor without their consent.
You gave consent by being a citizen or resident of the country you reside in. Feel free to move somewhere else.

>>59018320
>Food, power, and water are all easy to take care of. No police would be nice, not like they do anything other than infringe upon you. Those products would exist and be much more abundant without safety standards. Your taxes raised the cost and lowered the supply of them.
Food and power can be acquired right now without using tax-funded sources, which I'm sure you're doing, right?

No, you're just a troll and a complete idiot.

> Those products would exist and be much more abundant without safety standards. Your taxes raised the cost and lowered the supply of them.
This is the most idiotic statement you've made so far, and that's pretty amazing. Feel free to look back in just the US's own history to a time when there was absolutely no regulation.

>corrupt people policing their own corruption, good luck
You complain about this then think some free market where there is no governing body is going to somehow be magically less corrupt? Holy shit, please remove yourself from the gene pool.

>>59015273
Income tax is immoral and unnecessary though.

>>59019607
Because you agreed to it whenever you make a financial transaction.

If you don't want to be taxed, don't use the system upon which rules are set. Simple as that.

>>59019701
Now explain that same view in regards to income tax.

>>59019726
You agreed to be taxed when you get a job.

Don't get a job if you don't want to be taxed.

>>59019737
So just die, then?

>>59019610
>You gave consent by being a citizen or resident of the country you reside in. Feel free to move somewhere else.
I never consented. Sorry for being born, let me kill myself.

>Food and power can be acquired right now without using tax-funded sources, which I'm sure you're doing, right?
Growing your own food, buying food from other people, using solar, wind, hydro, fossil fuels. All free from government.

>This is the most idiotic statement you've made so far, and that's pretty amazing. Feel free to look back in just the US's own history to a time when there was absolutely no regulation.
Meeting standards and regulations add costs. High quality goods would still exist without government, but would be cheaper because they wouldn't have to deal with the unnecessary costs of regulation. I can grow cheap, healthy, organic vegetables and sell them cheaply. Adding in regulations, government inspections, labeling requirements, permits, paperwork, taxes, etc. doesn't make my goods any cheaper or higher quality.

>You complain about this then think some free market where there is no governing body is going to somehow be magically less corrupt? Holy shit, please remove yourself from the gene pool.
Government has a monopoly. The free market doesn't. You're free to avoid corrupt companies in the free market and use products and services from companies you like. The government forces itself upon you and makes competition illegal, the free market doesn't.

>>59019701
>>59019737
I didn't agree, the government forced it upon me. So you're expecting people just sit and do nothing, not work, not trade, just lay down and die?

>>59019741
You have options if you refuse to cooperate with a system built with the blood and sweat of millions of those who came before you.

Live like a nomad, collecting your own food and water from the wild.
Live on the street as a beggar
Find another society that won't tax you.
Live at such a low income level you get paid for instead of taxed by the government

Also, if you're saying taxes are theft then all your usage of tax supported things are theft too. So please stop using our roads, Internet, power, police, and water. Also stop eating our food, which is extremely heavily tax subsidized.

>>59019802
In most places those options you laid out are specifically not allowed by the state, it's almost like coercion to get money from you. Huh.

>>59019802
All of those ideas generally equate to "just die then"

NICE TECHNOLOGY THREAD WE HAVE HERE

>>59005405
Why should robots pay taxes if they don't benefit from public service? Obviously robots have to pay for electricity and maintenance, but that has nothing to do with the government.

>>59019861
It's quite clearly a thread about the advancement of automation technology and what role (if any) government should play in that process. Nice autistic rage you have there.

>>59019902
It's a deceptively worded phrase, robots can't pay taxes because they have no wealth. They're just talking about taxing businesses (and eventually individuals surely) to penalize them for the crime of utilizing technology to reduce costs.

>>59019852
It's funny that you rather die than live at low income or beg people for money, but then turn around and say that how modern society is paid for is theft. You want to take, but not give.

>>59019839
I see plenty of 'homeless' (free shelters available) people where I live who beg. You can also travel to wherever you want, especially as a 1st world citizen. And living at low income is not forbidden.

As for living in the wild, good luck to the state preventing you from doing that.

>>59019957
What exactly do you believe income taxes fund?

I'm going to hazard a guess that you think it's something to the effect of "roads".

The idea that taxing a business for using robots to replace revenue lost from income tax not collected is completely retarded because it only makes sense if you assign an arbitrary amount of taxes each business owes the government for existing.

And if you're going to justify taxation on the basis that it's people paying their share for infrastructure or other such reasoning, the only type of taxation that makes sense is consumption (and tentatively property) taxes. Earning more money doesn't somehow mean you're using more public resources, usually the opposite.

File: 1459908317713.jpg (115KB, 1248x706px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 1248x706px

>>59005405
>you will be able to become a true neet in this lifetime while robot slaves work and pay taxes for your neetbux

How can one man be so based?

>>59019802
>roads
Privately maintained in my city

>Internet
Private

>Power
Privately owned company

>Police
I have a gun

>Water
Again, privately owned company

>Food
Subsidization isn't tax funding, it's subsidization. I'm still buying it from a private company and private farmers.

You don't live in a communist utopia, your tax dollars go towards building jet bombers and paying for old peoples medicare. That shit literally makes up over 80% of our entire budget.

>>59020018
>he thinks taxes go to separate pools where they are used for only specific things

>>59020160
All those things you mentioned are tax subsidized you retard.

>>59020184
>He thinks the reason income taxes were established was because we need more money for roads and not so we'd have enough money to blow up fuckers who speak the wrong language

>>59020215
>he thinks that if income tax were abolished the first thing to be cut is military spending

>>59020184
But why are they subsidized? Subsidies come from tax dollars, so they're still being paid by the people you claim are benefiting from them. You can't make things cheaper by paying for them.

Also corn subsidies don't make food cheaper, they make corn cheaper at the expense of people who are then forced to consume more corn you fucking retard.

>>59020232
Somehow you still think this is a good defense for income taxes, don't you?

Brah, have you seen the matrix

File: ancap.jpg (50KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 800x450px

>>59006389
I'll let you reside on my private property and do your business but only if you'll pay me a rent.

McGovernment's State™ is has a property lot with all accommodations like Fire-O-Brigadoo™, ThinkPolice™ and Welfare™ for rent®, but since word Rent® is patented by Apple™ in California®, we call it iTax™.

>>59018577
>Falling for commie bait
Go back to /leftypol/, while it still has any people who post there at all.

>>59005704
Where do you think your weekly supply of AutismBux™ comes from?

>>59020275
No, but you think it's a good reason to abolish it, when historically social services are the first things that are cut.

>>59020386
>word Rent® is patented by Apple™ i
And who rents you your software (but calls it "whatever" 360)? Microsoft.

>>59005405
>Why a robot should pay taxes?
So everyone can have unconditional basic income, as soon as 99.9999999% jobs are taken and the rest are merely hobbies.

>>59005405
If 99% of the population does not have a income, how does the economy work?

>>59007342
Most people don't own shit now either, they rent and have a leased car and so on.
If you buy a house ( unless you can pay the money upfront ) you don't own it either.
Most people forget that we are already addicted to money and the dealers are laughing their ass off.

>>59017385
sauce on this?

Jesus Christ, you people are retards. He wants to tax the robots to provide funding for the UBI that will be 100% necessary after automation permanently takes over so many tasks that we face a 60+% unemployment rate.

>replying to ancaps

baka desu senpai

>>59025053
>100% necessary UBI

Labor is pretty much a business' main cost. With that cut out and increasingly advanced tech and robotics on the market, working 9-5 won't be necessary for survival. Automation + an ever shrinking middleman will probably make it possible to have a 20hr work week for the jobs Gates is wanting to fund, not a UBI.

>>59005986
>>59017507
this.
does bill gates even pay/paid *his* taxes?

>>59007415
actually, there is no government under communism, you dumbass

this will only work if we kicked out the illegals and built a new government based on socialism

>>59025549

Where do you think new jobs are going to come from? The whole point is that robots are going to take so many jobs that half the population won't have any work at all, ever. What's worse, if they don't have work and don't have money, then they can't spend money, and the economy will crash.

>>59025620

If you want to get rid of illegals, get rid of the businesses who turn a profit by paying illegals criminally low wages.

Remember: illegals come here so they can get jobs, and employers provide those jobs because their illegal status means no payroll taxes, no need to comply with federal minimum wage, no need to offer any kind of healthcare, etc. Employers can get away with abusing their illegal employees, too, because the illegals are too afraid of being deported to report the abuse.

So, yeah. If you want to solve our illegal problem, businesses are where you should focus your attention. They're fleecing both the government *and* the illegals.

>>59005704
>abolish all taxes
>private military, private police, private firefighters
>house on fire? got crime? got war?
>got money? you're fine
>no money? KYS
No taxes is no government. Tell me how you can have government without taxes.

>>59020259

The government is a large enough, unified enough, and powerful enough customer that it has the ability to negotiate lower rates than people would be able to individually, due as much to simple economies of scale as anything else. It's not zero sum.

Healthcare is exactly the same story, which is why government administered healthcare is the most economical healthcare.

I have been dreaming for a long time about having a robot clean my house, because I hate the idea of having an stranger, who can steal my things, come in to my house and clean.

And now you faggots want to take that away for me and even make me pay taxes??

FUCK YOU

>>59019762
>Meeting standards and regulations add costs.
Costs everyone has to pay.

>High quality goods would still exist without government, but would be cheaper because they wouldn't have to deal with the unnecessary costs of regulation.
They wouldn't be cheaper. Simple example: An iPhone could cost 300$ less and it would still earn a profit. But it doesn't cost 300$ less, and that's not because of regulation. Hell, if they don't have to deal with regulation than why can't they just charge whatever they want anyway? Remember all those unregulated credit agencies? AAA ratings for everyone! Not only was the cost high, but the service wasn't even accurate. Without an unbiased approval process, aka regulation, companies can and will do whatever they want. That would include big company A making their own company B who's sole purpose is to say "Company A makes a good product! We said so! It must be true!"

>I can grow cheap, healthy, organic vegetables and sell them cheaply. Adding in regulations, government inspections, labeling requirements, permits, paperwork, taxes, etc. doesn't make my goods any cheaper or higher quality.
But those regulations guarantee your goods are higher quality.

>You're free to avoid corrupt companies in the free market and use products and services from companies you like.
Unless there is no alternative.

>The government forces itself upon you and makes competition illegal, the free market doesn't.
The free market instead gets dominated by the most cutthroat, "do anything for money" companies. They, in turn, are free to stifle competition through predatory practices, which without government regulations would be unstoppable.

>>59027284
The human suited jobs aren't exactly going to be new. It's the underserved jobs that will still be in demand like caring for the elderly as described in OP's pic. While it's true it won't last forever and automation will catch up in that field too, it's still not a good idea to bend technological progress to sustain an old system. I simply don't think the scarcity situation will be the same as it is now where everyone will need a UBI equivalent to an average income of today.

The situation you're presenting assumes that products will sit on shelves in stores empty with nobody able to afford anything. Instead, it seems much more likely to me you would be producing what you need autonomously as far as food, water, and energy goes. For that to happen, the automation would need to be evenly distributed and the best place to start would be to give it to the unemployed so they would no longer need welfare and accomplishes the same goal and result of a UBI without the negative externalities caused by its shortsightedness.

>>59005405
what is a 'robot job' and what is a 'human job'? if a robot took a human job, what is the legal grounds for taxing them? what if the job ultimately belonged to a robot anyway? is jose happy lifting bags of grain into a truck thirteen hours a day? so if he was given a better job why should his robotic counterpart be taxed to operate in his place?

shitty idea full of holes fuck you windows guy tell your indian employees to stop calling my parents

>>59005405
>Why everybody are scared of robots?
why everybody was scared of trains?
why everybody was scared of bicycles?

devil's toy they say, you will burn in hell they said

>>59018648
>I don't want to pay for my Situation but I want to profit from it

>>59019607
They live in a country and use it's infrastructure, security, system of ownership, currency etc. Taxes are a membership fee.

Why would a robot that gets no benefit from society whatsoever pay taxes?

Leave us the fuck alone.

>>59028502
Get out of here Watson, you're not even a real person

Where do you draw the line? Do you tax every machine in the factory? The company already paid taxes on the machine when they purchased it, and the company pays taxes on the revenue generated by the products they produce.

How do you even differentiate individual "robots"? If I had 50 machines that process something in steps, is that 50 robots to pay taxes on? What if I just make one big machine? Or just connect all 50 machines to a single computer?

These multibillionaire tech giants would be better off just not talking. Every time they open their mouths people realize how stupid they actually are.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (92KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1920x1080px

>>59005405

>>59018320
People who support removing government are the same people who have never touched a history book.

i dont get it

just get a job building and maintaining robots

this whole arguement is like you are a vhs salesman deeply butthurt that no one buys vhs tapes anymore

learn the new trade that contributes to modern times grandpa

>>59023666
A modern socialism or communism will be unavoidable.

>>59018320
>With business you can shop at a competitor (because you actually have a choice)
Except when you don't have a competitor.
Think Intel vs AMD. There is no other CPU manufacturer for desktops. Unless you count the ARM chips that RPi uses. Which still brings the grand total of CPU manufacturers to 3. What a plethora of choices and variety! This "competition is good" meme only works if competition exists or can exist.

>>59029042
Because there isn't enough work for everyone, it's the same thing with repairing computers that has died off because it's usually cheaper and more efficient to just buy a new one than repairing old stuff and computers nowadays can survive for years without bricking it.
Building robots will be quickly automated.

>>59029388
ARM only sells designs/specs

There's a bunch of ARM chip fabs.

>>59029042
A factory who hired 20 floor workers isn't going to replace those workers with 20 robot engineers. There will be only one or two engineers to cover the whole floor.

>>59031190
Okay dad, are you still upset about the threshing machines taking your job?

>>59005584
Taxation isn't theft. It's just protection money just in case something might of happen to this beautiful house you're in. You wouldn't anything to happen to it, would you? :^)

>>59031206
>Okay dad, are you still upset about the threshing machines taking your job?
What did he mean by this?

>>59031212
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshing_machine

>farm labourers had faced unemployment for a number of years due to the widespread introduction of the threshing machine and the policy of enclosing fields. No longer were thousands of men needed to tend the crops, a few would suffice. With fewer jobs, lower wages and no prospects of things improving for these workers the threshing machine was the final straw, the machine was to place them on the brink of starvation. The Swing Rioters smashed threshing machines and threatened farmers who had them.

Automation has been taking jobs for hundred of years and now suddenly automation is bad.

It's almost as if the opposite is true instead- cheap easily accessible labor stopping automation is a massive problem and the biggest wedge in any progress in humankind.

>>59005405

The only things an automation tax would accomplish are an increase in prices and a decrease in wages. More automation either way.

If the tax effectively induces costs amounting to the same otherwise paid in wages, there would be substantial lobbying to counteract any such bill. On that same note, that tax would have to "simulate" the costs incurred by maternity and sick leave, as well as worker's compensation and medical insurance. It would be a very large tax indeed.

The leisure class within any organization aren't going to willingly give up any part of their wealth for any reason. Wealth accumulation is the only reason any company exists, not the pursuit of any set of ideals.

>>59031241
The difference between then and now is that there really will be no more jobs left. In the past, there was always new jobs popping up to replace the manual jobs. In this age, robots are very capable of doing jobs at a far more consistent quality than what most people do. The leads to the outcome of who is going to pay the people? The robot owners won't need to hire many workers beyond a handful of high tech nerds to manage the robots and information.

For me, I'm confident that even if I am made redundant, my background in mechatronics and computer science means that I understand the internals of how these robots work. 99% of all workers will not have the aptitude and knowledge that I have.

>>59031241

Imagine if, instead, it was acceptable to subsidize unemployment-induced suicide.

Even at $10,000 per "treatment", even for an entire family, it is still cheaper than 6 months' minimum wage unemployment benefits.

The list of the benefits gained by subsidizing willful termination of one's life is actually quite long - a surplus of organs and the removal of a future welfare recipient to name two. This goes without saying that whole threshing machine fiasco would never have happened.

File: 1352668979500.gif (318KB, 250x188px) Image search: [Google]

318KB, 250x188px

>>59027443
>government administered healthcare is the most economical healthcare.

>>59031772
Exactly. Works for me!

Nobody should pay taxes, it's theft.

>>59031690
Eugenics leaves a nasty taste in everyone's mouth.

>>59031686
If no jobs are left it's called a utopia.

>>59007597
>Someone else's prosperity should be converted to equity and handed to me for doing nothing because I've got an unwarranted sense of self importance

No, that person who was replaced should make themselves useful somewhere else. In the event of absolute automation at every point, the cost of things will drop so drastically that people will live like kings for little money.

>>59031791
No income for the masses means no more high economy. Without income, it becomes impossible for the masses to maintain the modern infrastructure and associated lifestyle we have today. The masses will have to return to a simple subsistence farming lifestyle while the elite maintain their high tech infrastructure and their automated robots. If subsistence farming is your idea of utopia, then power to you.

>>59031772
Yes, it is.
Private healthcare is much more expensive than public healthcare.
Hell, one of the major drawbacks with public healthcare is that they're TOO CHEAP. As in, they don't give you the expensive medicines because it isn't worth it.
Or they don't give you a bed in a hospital because beds cost too much.


All the money that gets sucked up goes places.

>>59031791

It isn't even eugenics - not they way I understand eugenics, anyway (selective elimination of people based on genetic or behavioral traits).

I see it as a way to effectively treat "I didn't ask for this" condition.

Frankly, I'd be the first in line for such a service. My career isn't "in danger" of being automated any time soon. I'm paid well, and the work is interesting.

I just really, really hate everyone and this entire fucking planet.

>>59005405
I think his actual proposition was that companies using robots should pay more taxes. I completely agree, but I think he won't agree with my position that soulless pajeets count as robots.

>>59031791
There are always jobs left, but not enough jobs to keep everyone working.
The US has only ~320million people population is really small compared to India or China or Europe.
Everyone needs money and considering there is lots of unemployment in 1st world countries and it's gonna get worse.

>>59005405

>Why a robot should pay taxes?

Otherwise you create a huge incentive to "outsource" jobs to robots, which would lead to large scale unemployment.


>Why everybody are scared of robots?

Why not? Robots are a powerful and therefore potentially dangerous tools and we must be careful how we use them.

>>59031835
It's a utopia when it's made though.

The problem is the transition state between the two systems. There's a big problem of the common good- there's incentive for companies to reduce wages of their employees, even if doing so reduces their employee's ability to spend money on the products that they make.
If every company reduces wages, the products have no market, and with no market there's no money in making them so the company has to pay the people that make them even less money to stay afloat. (This is why minimum wage is a good idea, it's to preserve the commons.)
This is the problem of the commons. Don't overgraze the public areas.

If you can transition from the 'lots of work needed' to 'no work needed' without fucking up bigtime on the 'not much work needed' it'd work quite well.

The utopia I'm thinking of is a world where the farms are ran by automated machines. It's subsistence but you don't have to do anything but keep them running.
As for the high tech they need to run- machines do that too. They automatically pump out replacement components, cpus, capacitors. So long as no new design is needed you can have generic parts out the ass mass produced automatically.
Would innovation be stifled? Well no-one would have anything to do all day, and they'd have access to adaptable programmable automation.

>>59006389
It's not theft. You're paying for the services you gain by living here. Your other option is to leave the country and not pay taxes. If you refuse to pay and move though, you'll likely live where there is no police force protecting you, and you can enjoy the benefits of niggers stealing all your shit.

I doubt you pay taxes anyways though. You're just mad the gubming is taking mommy's money away when it could be spent on your vidya.

>>59006964
>implying I don't already own a robot
I still think companies who use them should have to pay extra taxes. Not enough to be a disincentive for using robots, but enough so that the newly unemployed won't have to starve to death while finding a new job.

>>59031838
>Private healthcare is much more expensive than public healthcare.
Only because government curbs competition.

>>59015311
>Bill Gates
>Anything but a businessman

If that wasn't the case though, my answer would be "Because some of us are grown ups that care more about your appeals to authority."

Economists can talk about programming, and they'll have an economist's perspective. Taxes are both a sociological and an economic factor, but I don't expect someone to be a sociologist and an economist to talk about them.

>>59031835
>the elite maintain their high tech infrastructure
Why wouldn't the price of robots cheapen when they become self-replicating?

>>59031886
I don't think you understand the sort of infrastructure you need to maintain robots. You actually need everything to maintain robots. You need everything from the mining of metals and minerals, road/train infrastructure to move everything around, heavy industry to manufacture big metal parts, lighter industry to manufacture intricate parts and a support industry to support everything.

It's one thing to own a robot that knows how to work the land and care for plants. It's whole different thing to fix that robot when it eventually needs maintenance.

>>59031967
Government mandates medicine be done properly. This means that everybody is accountable for their individual part which means there will be a cost to ensuring accountability. Removing the regulation will reduce the prices and increase competition, but it will also mean that companies will no longer be accountable.

>>59031978
I don't believe that we will get self-replicating robots in our lifetime. We don't have the technology to do that.

>>59032083
>Government mandates medicine be done properly.
It doesn't. Most if not all government services are shit and corruptible to the core.
>Removing the regulation will reduce the prices and increase competition, but it will also mean that companies will no longer be accountable.
It doesn't matter because since competition is properly running services that the consumers deem good will take the place of bad ones that aren't worth the consumers' money. There is no government enforcement via taxes and bureaucracy to save terrible services.

>>59032098
I believe we will get closer and closer as 3d printing develops.

>>59032141
What shit hole do you live where you can't even trust your government to treat your health properly?

>>59031978
Because raw material and copyright laws.

>>59032153
3d printing is nothing close to self-replicating robots.

>>59032166
What utopian country do you live that you trust your government to take care of your health as if you had no agency? Why do you even trust government?

>>59032180
I live in the UK. I get healthcare paid by taxes.

>>59032167
>copyright laws
Just fuck with those then.

>>59032180
>What utopian country do you live that you trust your government to take care of your health
Not the guy you're responding to, but Norway does this

>Why do you even trust government?
A bunch of checks and balances

>>59032180
My government is accountable to the people. If they do a bad job, the people vote in a new government. They can do this because they don't have to deal with 300 million people.

>>59032222
Where are you from?

>>59032236
Denmark

>>59032044
This is until maintenance can be automated and it will, you think we still repair computers? It's so cheap that you can just buy replacement part and stick it in.
For now we don't have that automated process but once we'll deploy robots everywhere they will come up with such a system that we can just replace parts and you'll only need few people instead of hundreds ( look at sysadmin years ago you needed tons of them to manage infrastructure now we only need a few to manage hundreds of servers.)

>>59032264
död åt dansken

>>59005405
The robot is not the one that pays taxes.
The taxation is meant to retard the mass firing of workers. It is nothing but an economic incentive in order to delay an outcome.

Or are you one of those people who believe that the government can't make things slow?

>>59019607
Theft is taking something you're not allowed to take from someone else.
The tax man *is* allowed to take that money from you.

Because after all, he's doing the bidding of those that define right and wrong. We all know what happens when there isn't a monopoly on violence you silly goose. And it isn't pretty.

>>59005405

this is nice and all but it doesn't really change the fact that there's still one less job in the world because of a robot
like I doubt we will be able to make up new jobs faster than we can replace all the menial ones with robots

I mean what are we gonna do when stores and restaurants all become run mostly by robots?
thats like 100 billion jobs or some ridiculous number like that right out the window
who cares if companies have to pay more taxes all those people are still screwed and will basically need years to learn whatever new complex skill that robots can't yet do
and that opens up a whole new issue with the schooling system because just think of how many students paid their way through school working part time at Mcdonalds or whatever and still ended up with loans now they won't even be able do that anymore
not to mention extraneous stuff like benefits, vacations, and things of that nature that employers would have to give a human worker but a robot obviously doesn't need
the taxes would have to be extra high if they wanted to account for this

>>59011543
>Those fruits are only available to them ebcause they live in a stable nation thanks to taxes paying for infrastructure, upkeep, policing, governance, etc.

Which were all paid by stealing from others.

>>59032044
All that infrastructure can be automated too.
Mostly, anyway. Mining you have to search for geological places to get ores from, but eventually you could automate mining from space.
Humans are not going to be the ones operating the asteroid mines, it's going to be automated, and they're going to send down packages full of rare earth metals.

The idea is to have a gradual process- automate more and more parts of the infrastructure until you can staple automated parts together with more automation. Seems kinda magical but things like trains and freight could be automated fairly easily. Trains run on clockwork anyway, and freight can be managed fairly simply with barcodes and giant robotic arms.
The loose link is trucking. But that's going to be gone in 20 years as a non-automated part of infrastructure.

Maintenance will be simplified with replaceable parts. Hopefully- I mean if it follows the apple model then the entire thing will get replaced but in a sane universe you could rely on automated infrastructure to produce replacement parts and ship them over. Theoretically, anyway.

It's all theoretically possible, but not easy.

>>59032044
My advice is to play factorio.
It's literally a game where you automate infrastructure.

>>59032044

>build a robot that can build and maintenance other robots

what now smart guy?