Support NeoGAF

[wildfire]

More importantly it would clearly require a constitutional amendment to be done on the federal level.

Which amendment you think this violates? People have tried arguing against income tax in general with many different amendments.

 

[iamblades]

Which amendment you think this violates? People have tried arguing against income tax in general with many different amendments.

What? Income tax IS an amendment, and had to be, because it was no where in the powers delegated to the federal government originally.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Certainly taxation on something where no money even changes hands would require an amendment as well.

 

[AstroLad]

I'm not saying it's the right solution, but it's absolutely the right line of thinking. The fetishization of jobs and equating them with human worth is destroying this country, and will only accelerate in its destructiveness as they continue to disappear.

 

[Spiral Insanity]

Sort of. Like many issues it is about framing or labeling it. If you say basic income that sounds like a handout to people who are working and perceived as safe but if people are trained and given other jobs that are funded by "Robot" tax it is an easier sell.



Because if a small business goes under it impacts a smaller number of people than having a large corporation leave the state or the county. Also, fundamentally big businesses have more clout and better lobbying power.

Well, I know that, but it's just wrong. We could pave the streets in gold with all the lost taxes that big corporations get away with.

 

[wildfire]

What? Income tax IS an amendment, and had to be, because it was no where in the powers delegated to the federal government originally.

As I said people tried arguing income tax is invalid because it wasn't ratified properly in the 16th amendment. Anyway let's not get distracted with frivolous court cases.

Certainly taxation on something where no money even changes hands would require an amendment as well.

Money is always exchanged. First from customer to producer or service provider. Not having to pay AI doesn't invalidate that first transaction.

This gives more credence to your previous suggestion to shift towards a consumption tax but that doesn't have to be the only option going forward. Analyzing past work of a human and current work of their AI replacement it can be determined how much efficiency automation gives and based on that efficiency tax that work at a rate reflective of the lower costs compared to a person trying to do the same work. Since machinery can do much more work than people these taxes can scale pretty nicely.