+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 15 of 15
  1. #1
    Member brandon184's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    14,398

    Bill Gates: the robot that takes your job should pay taxes



    The struggle between the rich and the poor as automation sacrifices more jobs and the rich take more and more of the pie.
    THE DONALD FOR AMERICA

  2. #2
    Tech IMO Bug Finder pickel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 1999
    Location
    Jackson,MS
    Posts
    14,755
    If the "Robots" get taxed, don't you think that the companies that employ their use, will inflate the cost of acquisition ,maintenance and electric power to run them ????

    Their CPA's are, I'm sure, way ahead of the game.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOtab0BKOGY
    The Nation which forgets it's defenders will itself be forgotten
    You cannot make peace with dictators. You have to destroy them–wipe them out!

  3. #3
    Prof. of DooGlian Studies MegalosSkylaki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Nr. GroundZero NYC
    Posts
    10,427
    Taxes can be passed on according to how elastic the demand for the product is--the more elastic , the less it's passed on to the customer.

    Karl Marx foresaw the problem of cost saving devices and their own cost: if a device saved the capitalist 10,000 thousands pounds, than the market would bid up its price to, well, 10,000 thousand pounds. So why would the capitalist install one in the first place? Because some other company might and gain an advantage.

    The American railroads had the ability to install the new air breaks which would have allowed them to create trains of more than 5 carriages as the manual brakes required a brakeman to dangerously run from car to car while the air breaks allowed some dozen cars more safely trained. Yet the railroads were reluctant to install them into the Railway Act forced this profit making (!) device upon them--showing that not even profit makes people reasonable.

    What a "robot" even is may not resemble a humanoid. Imagine nano robots or what we already have in car manufacturers. The term comes from a play I believe R.U.R. --Rossum's Universal Robots (R.U.R.) by Karol Capek and the word comes from serfdom and the duty to perform labour for the master called the "robot"..

    Hmmm....there is a heart (and other) surgery device that looks like a giant crab called a di Vinci machine where the surgeon sits at a computer. Tax the di Vinci machine, eh? I think NM taxes medicines...surgery?? Nah !

    Polymathic Leisure DooG !

  4. #4
    Senior Member Mojo Risin''s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    Posts
    860
    Even robots and newer automated technologies need someone to maintain and improve them. Technology moves on and if you choose not to, it's your choice. Heck, if one wanted advancement to stand still back in the day. I'd be traveling in a horse and buggy. Technological advances requires a whole bunch of a capable workforce to institute it.

    The problem the Left faces is technology exempts a huge portion of their voter base. Hence, they have to offset certain advancements which could potentially impact their political power.
    Mojo
    I don't always exercise, but when I do it's my Constitutional right to bear arms.

  5. #5
    Living the dream The Real Bingo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    SGF, MO
    Posts
    23,011
    I reckon this fear has been around since the industrial revolution and has, time and again, proven to be misplaced.

  6. #6
    Member brandon184's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    14,398
    Quote Originally Posted by The Real Bingo View Post
    I reckon this fear has been around since the industrial revolution and has, time and again, proven to be misplaced.
    .. millions of people have already lost their jobs because of automation. They're unemployed or partially employed and voting for Trump to #MAGA.
    THE DONALD FOR AMERICA

  7. #7
    Living the dream The Real Bingo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    SGF, MO
    Posts
    23,011
    Quote Originally Posted by brandon184 View Post
    .. millions of people have already lost their jobs because of automation. They're unemployed or partially employed and voting for Trump to #MAGA.
    Should technological/societal advancement be stifled so that jobs can be retained? If a pill was developed to cure all cancer, would you rather it be unused to keep oncologists employed?

  8. #8
    AGW Trained Seal tony_j15's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Joplin, MO
    Posts
    19,023
    Blog Entries
    1
    False dilemma.

  9. #9
    Living the dream The Real Bingo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    SGF, MO
    Posts
    23,011
    So advancements in automation and machinery that take humans away from certain professions is less desirable than keeping them in dangerous/laborious jobs? Would the human condition be as bright as it is today if this type of attitude had prevailed over history?

  10. #10
    Member brandon184's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    14,398
    Quote Originally Posted by The Real Bingo View Post
    Should technological/societal advancement be stifled so that jobs can be retained? If a pill was developed to cure all cancer, would you rather it be unused to keep oncologists employed?
    I have no idea what you're implying. I am all for having robots replace humans. I think that the owners of the means of production who have been benefitting from automation and will be the primary beneficiaries of automation should pay the rest of us to stay home since they will be getting rid of our jobs.
    THE DONALD FOR AMERICA

  11. #11
    Prof. of DooGlian Studies MegalosSkylaki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Nr. GroundZero NYC
    Posts
    10,427
    Quote Originally Posted by The Real Bingo View Post
    I reckon this fear has been around since the industrial revolution and has, time and again, proven to be misplaced.

    Luddites (early 19th century) As the Industrial Revolution accelerated in the early 19th century, many skilled textile workers were replaced by unskilled laborers who could use newly invented machines. The most vocal opponents of textile mechanization were known as Luddites, a term said to have derived from the surname of a youth named Ned Ludd who broke two stocking frames in 1779. Between 1811 and 1813, organized groups of Luddites clashed with the British military at mills in Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire. In response, Parliament passed the Frame Breaking Act, which made industrial sabotage a capital crime.

    While the Luddites were suppressed relatively quickly, the perpetrators of the Swing Riots in Kent in 1830 employed similar tactics by demolishing threshing machines to protest the mechanization of agriculture. Today, the term “Luddite” refers more generally to anybody who is uncomfortable with technology.

    Without the rationalization of agriculture, the Industrial Revolution might never have taken place because it "freed" the cheap labour necessary for industrialization. In its early days, the machines had to be themselves labouriously hand-produced and the capital-intensiveness of industrialization required economies elsewhere--as in very cheap and abundant labour. It was only later that machines could be used to make machines

    The rationalization of agriculture had two features, food could be grown with less people by various inventions, even a yoke which did not cut off the larynx and fallowing techniques as well as legal changes for the conveyancing of land. The American "fee simple" method where you own the land from the center of the earth to the top of the sky was foreign to Europe where what was held was the limited right to use the land which ultimately was derived from the local or distant sovereign.

    The other was the abolition of "robot", the duty of service to the local aristocrat and giving allowance to relocate. The newly "freed" labor found itself unemployed and would to work for subsistence wages. ("Will work for food" ) and the need for all family members to work to subsist, starting from about age 4 or 5 years.

    For some reason the Luddites are often confused--as least in nomenclature with an earlier group called the Lollards and I seen references to "modern-day Lollardism"** in this regard. Maybe they sound alike, an acoustic rather than semantic confusion.


    **
    He and the Lollards also challenged the privileged status of the clergy, calling at various times for a lay clergy, an end to clerical celibacy, the end of confession to priests, and a ban on priests holding temporal offices. The Lollards were driven underground....[Edit]Wycliffe was posthumously declared a heretic at the 1415 Council of Constance, after which his corpse was exhumed and posthumously beheaded
    This seems rather extreme to me, punishing the already dead.... Maybe I shouldn't make light () but--I wonder if he was reburied on unconsecrated ground and I wonder if Bram Stoker got the idea of [driving a stake into the (un)dead] and decapitating them after their demise...

  12. #12
    Living the dream The Real Bingo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    SGF, MO
    Posts
    23,011
    Quote Originally Posted by brandon184 View Post
    I have no idea what you're implying. I am all for having robots replace humans. I think that the owners of the means of production who have been benefitting from automation and will be the primary beneficiaries of automation should pay the rest of us to stay home since they will be getting rid of our jobs.
    A tax benefits the government - not the taxpayer - and any savings realized by the consumer from increased efficiency will be lost via the tax. It may also have the effect of retarding robotic advancement.

  13. #13
    Member brandon184's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    14,398
    Quote Originally Posted by The Real Bingo View Post
    A tax benefits the government
    The government serves the people. Should robots make a plethora of jobs irrelevant, there's going to be a lot of people who require some type of government support. Even "Universal Basic Income".

    Shouldn't the elimination of jobs be something that the human race strives for? We develop the technology so that we don't have to work and can do fun things only.
    THE DONALD FOR AMERICA

  14. #14
    Living the dream The Real Bingo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    SGF, MO
    Posts
    23,011
    Quote Originally Posted by brandon184 View Post
    The government serves the people. Should robots make a plethora of jobs irrelevant, there's going to be a lot of people who require some type of government support. Even "Universal Basic Income".

    Shouldn't the elimination of jobs be something that the human race strives for? We develop the technology so that we don't have to work and can do fun things only.
    I'm familiar with the concept, but I can't wrap my head around a truly economically egalitarian system. Apparently it's because the current "market-based" economy is all I know and trying to conceptualize an economy without jobs or money or cost-benefit analysis is like being told blue is really red. And if we get to the point where robots are essentially omnipotent servants for us, I'd be concerned about who is controlling the robots. Someone had to program them, in which case we're still serfs, just in a different way.

  15. #15
    Member brandon184's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    14,398
    Well you best wrap your head around it soon before a robot replaces you. Maybe you'll get lucky and the robot that replaces you will be one that needs an "operator". Until A.I. replaces the operator.

    Fun times!
    THE DONALD FOR AMERICA

Quick Reply Quick Reply

If you are already a member, please login above.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Finally a robot I would willingly pay money for.
    By no1_vern in forum IMO Community
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: April 3rd, 2010, 10:12 PM
  2. Bill Gates is no more!!
    By vikeor in forum General Tech Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: June 16th, 2006, 11:25 AM
  3. Bill Gates What?
    By AJAJAJ in forum IMO Community
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: January 18th, 2005, 12:08 AM
  4. Bill Gates gets a pay raise
    By Jokerswild in forum General Tech Discussion
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: September 30th, 2004, 10:24 AM
  5. Bill Gates
    By Joe Desa in forum IMO Community
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: May 11th, 2003, 11:56 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Copyright 2014 All Enthusiast, Inc