1 Name: i'm stoned : 2017-02-22 06:00 ID:GynV/Lz0 [Del]

Has anybody considered minimum basic income and taxing robots?
The tax from robots is given to the people, who then give that money back to the companies that were initially taxed.

2 Name: Anonymous : 2017-02-22 06:07 ID:GynV/Lz0 [Del]

3 Name: Anonymous : 2017-02-22 20:29 ID:2o4koupL [Del]

So welfare for everybody?

4 Name: Anonymous : 2017-02-23 09:57 ID:1ZeWYIIR [Del]

As much as I'd love to support these ideas, my gut feeling is that the government isn't able to fund a universal basic income for citizens. I'm waiting for the 10 year outcome of Finland's experiment.


5 Name: Anonymous : 2017-02-23 16:42 ID:GynV/Lz0 [Del]

Ah I wasn't aware they were doing this, very interesting I'll definitely follow this.

I see basic income as something that's going to become a necessity if robots continue to evolve this quickly. Whether or not it's affordable is another issue entirely.

6 Name: Anonymous : 2017-02-24 07:11 ID:QAPEUqKV [Del]

Why would there be basic income instead of advanced genocide? Welfare only exists because of need for workers and a functional society. If there's no need for workers, no need for a functional society. The constant failures of communism prove that genocide is, in practice, preferred to sharing. With efficient robots doing the genociding the only hope will be a Terminator scenario and who knows if that would even work.

7 Name: Anonymous : 2017-02-27 10:35

robots don't earn wages, though if they advanced enough they could, but that's a whole other can of worms

8 Name: Anonymous : 2017-02-27 12:04

automated mechanisms make it unnecessary to pay wages to persons? companies using them can still be taxed if they have a traded revenue. but capitalism is based around living off other people, even with a basic income some people will continue building the rich people's mansions and turning stones so they can be less poor, and in the process making the guaranteed income tradeable. ("capitalism leaves no stone unturned")

personally i'd rather see a more decentralized economy where you don't have to have money to make money, but where they can just design things and collaborate on problems of supply. but that's a cultural change, it can't work as much with people wanting to have the right to live off other people.

it's a bit like open-source software, only that with software it's easy because it's just a matter of copying digital bit patterns. and open-souce software isn't just people wanting to make things, but that's still the backbone of the ecosystem. but even though open code would still build any infrastructure and would still power an economy, it encounters some principled hostility because it can't make "someone" the same profits that closed software can make, even if they aren't currently that someone.

9 Name: Anonymous : 2017-02-28 12:53


> companies using them can still be taxed if they have a traded revenue.

yeah but doesn't that defeat the purpose of the company using robots/machines over people
In some ways its pretty similar, basically we'll build some other technological being to live off

Name: Link:
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
More options...