Does the taxation of robotics make any sense

[Zero999]

There are other things you don't seem to have considered, such as no longer being bound by the US constitution. Suppose the new government wanted to stop black people from voting? No US state can do that, because it's unconstitutional. I think the other states would be pissed off with one being able to do what they want.

I am not aware of the voting situation in Australia or New Zealand or even Germany.  Not my circus, not my monkeys.  The point is, if Texas was an independent country they could do whatever their people wanted.  I doubt that they would go full retard.

The whole point of having a constitution is to prevent governments from going full retard.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/11/switzerland-court-overturns-referendum-as-voters-were-poorly-informed

Court overturns referendum as voters were poorly informed ... in Switzerland

Incomplete detail and lack of transparency invalidated vote on tax laws, says supreme court

Switzerland’s supreme court has overturned a nationwide referendum for the first time in the country’s modern history, on the grounds that the information given to voters was insufficient.

In a ruling that may resonate in Britain, where remain campaigners have long argued that voters in the 2016 Brexit referendum were not adequately informed, the court said incomplete detail and a lack of transparency had violated the freedom of the vote, which could now be re-run.

Maybe the UK can learn something.

The UK referendum wasn't legally binding, as I believe those in Switzerland are, so the government wouldn't have to go to court, but in order to stop Brexit, they need to do so in a manner which appears to be legitimate, otherwise there's a risk of serious civil disorder and even more distrust in government. Another referendum because court deciding the result was invalid would be a good way to keep the peace.

[soldar]

The whole point of having a constitution is to prevent governments from going full retard.

OTOH, when a people/country want to go full retard a constitution isn't going to stop them. They will change it or ignore it or pretend it means whatever they want.  Any constitution (including religious texts) can be creatively interpreted to mean whatever the user wants.

A constitution is no better than the people who implement it and use it. Decades ago I used to give an example to people who thought a well written constitution is the answer to everything.  I would ask them, what do you think is better? A country with a written constitution that guarantees civil rights, jobs, housing, no state religion, etc. Or a country with no written constitution, with no such guarantees, with the state endorsing a certain religion, etc.

When they would answer that the first is obviously better I would ask "so you would rather live in the Soviet Union than in the UK?"

The UK has a strange system of government which logically makes no sense and yet it has given excellent results over the centuries because the people and their representatives were bound by tradition and they used good judgment and tolerance. That culture is much more important than any written constitution.

I want my country to participate in international treaties. I believe it is good that we give up some sovereignty in exchange for having a say in other countries affairs. That makes international relations and commerce easier and better and makes wars less likely.  That is a sign of civilization. Countries that want to not have limits or bounds are dangerous to world stability.   A civilized individual submits to the laws that his society has chosen to impose and a civilized country submits to the laws that have been agreed by all nations.

The UK referendum wasn't legally binding, as I believe those in Switzerland are, so the government wouldn't have to go to court, but in order to stop Brexit, they need to do so in a manner which appears to be legitimate, otherwise there's a risk of serious civil disorder and even more distrust in government. Another referendum because court deciding the result was invalid would be a good way to keep the peace.

Part of the mess is that the referendum is considered binding and not binding at the same time. Legally it is not binding as Parliament is supreme and sovereign.  OTOH politically the "winners" want to make it look like it is binding in spite of the confusion and irregularities.

Everybody involved have messed up big time and it is a shameful spectacle the UK is giving.

[soldar]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/11/uk-stands-down-6000-no-deal-brexit-staff-after-spending-15bn

UK stands down 6,000 no-deal Brexit staff - after spending £1.5bn

Civil service to stand down its no-deal contingency plans in light of new departure date

The government has stood down an army of 6,000 civil servants who had been preparing for a no-deal Brexit, at an estimated cost of £1.5bn.

The civil servants who had been seconded from elsewhere will now return to their normal duties, but there is no clear role for an estimated 4,500 new recruits after article 50 was extended until Halloween.

More than 16,000 civil servants in total have been working on Brexit.

You know... money that could have gone to the NHS.

[Zero999]

At least Brexit has created some extra jobs.

Yes, a constitution doesn't prevent the government from going full retard. The country's government's power needs to be limited. There needs to be checks and balances, rule of law and an independent judiciary, able to block any stupid decisions.  The Soviet Union had none of the above, whilst the UK had pretty strong rule of law at the time. Look at what's recently happened with Trump in the US. Imagine what would happen with no restrictions on his power.

[soldar]

A prudent policy is to not make major changes in a hurry. Think it over, discuss it. Especially issues which are divisive and of great importance. If in any doubt, leave things as they were and think some more. If you cannot get a consensus just leave it be and maybe bring it up again in the future.

This policy has worked well for the UK. The abolition or substitution of the House of Lords has been gradually and very slowly going on for over a century now just because it is a complicated subject where agreement is difficult to find.

It took decades to build the EU and UK's part in it and it was a grave mistake to want to undo all that on a slim majority and in a hurry.

If you want to move in that direction then take whatever you like least and start working on that. Say your most hated issue is the curvature of bananas. Then start working on getting the UK out of that and allowing the importation and sale in the UK of bananas of any curvature up to and including straight bananas. Once you have completed that step and with the advantage and knowledge you have gained you can go on to negotiate another issue. That way you are moving slowly and not creating huge problems. You have time to set up you banana inspectors unit at every border.

Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

[rstofer]

The whole point of having a constitution is to prevent governments from going full retard.

In the US, each state has its own constitution subordinate to the US Constitution.  In theory, rights enumerated under the US Bill of Rights can not be trashed by states.  In theory...

If you are paying attention to the marijuana issue, you will notice a divergence between the state and federal governments.  Marijuana remains illegal under federal law but legal under some state laws.  There is some conflict going on below the surface.  For example, legal marijuana growers can't use banks or credit card companies as these are regulated by the federal government and subject to federal law.  It is a strictly cash business!  This makes it awkward to pay taxes - most notably Federal Income Tax where they have to take boxes of cash to the IRS offices and the IRS has no way to deal with cash.  Note that while marijuana may be illegal on the federal level, they are not averse to collecting taxes on the business transactions.  I suppose there is also a problem paying into employees Social Security accounts.  I haven't heard how that is working out.  I guess 401(k) retirement plans are right out the window.

[electromotive]

In the US, each state has its own constitution subordinate to the US Constitution.  In theory, rights enumerated under the US Bill of Rights can not be trashed by states.  In theory..

States rights were presumably (per the Federalist Papers and other such essays) permitted so that the states could govern over issues of immediate need without needing to wait on congressional approval. As such, it would seem the original intent was for them to exist as a stop gap measure so that a true resolution could eventually be worked out in Congress. For the most part, this worked well for 150 or so years before the era of the loophole politician. Unfortunately today, we see both ends of that spectrum:

--States like California and New York use the concept of states rights to suppress rights they find inconvenient (questionable restriction of firearms rights, car idling, consumption of corn sugar products) through tyranny of the majority party.
--States like Colorado and Washington use the concept of states rights to expand or protect rights that may not be specifically enumerated (death with dignity, tolerance of marijuana, same sex marriage and related rights, etc).

[rstofer]

In the US, each state has its own constitution subordinate to the US Constitution.  In theory, rights enumerated under the US Bill of Rights can not be trashed by states.  In theory..

--States like California and New York use the concept of states rights to suppress rights they find inconvenient (questionable restriction of firearms rights, car idling, consumption of corn sugar products) through tyranny of the majority party.

Of course, the other side complains about tyranny of the minority - the Electoral College is one example (depending on the outcome) as is requiring super majorities for some legislative actions including raising local taxes.  Prop 13 was the best thing to ever happen in California!

Whether you are in the majority or the minority, tyranny is on the menu.  But it's always 'the other guys'.  I wouldn't use the US as an example of good government.  OTOH, I don't have any better examples either.

The Founding Fathers didn't want a strong central government (think modern day EU/Brussels) because they simply didn't trust governments - any governments, including the one they were creating.  So, conceding that there would be a strong central government, they gave the people the right to protest against such government (1st Amendment) and the ability to keep the 1st Amendment with the 2d Amendment.  Everything else is derived from there.  It's not a quirk or whim that these are the first two amendments.

[apis]

It may be just me getting old but I grew up in the longest period of peace and the most prosperous the western world has known and there was a feeling that things were always getting better.

The Anglo countries, especially US and UK were examples of stability and good government. You could disagree with many of their policies, and I did, but overall they had responsible leaders and good government. They did not do *really* stupid things, only moderately stupid. They did not damage the system.

People sobered up a little after the mistakes from the first parts of the 20'th century, but the last generation of people who experienced that are dying, it's people who grew up sheltered in the peace and prosperity that followed that are now in charge.

We think that we are superior to other cultures just because of who we are but other cultures are catching up fast and we better wake up or we will be surpassed.

I don't want to imagine the day when people visit the ruins of Westminster, like we visit the ruins of Rome today, and think "this was once a great place that ruled an empire".

I don't know if there have ever been any "great" empires, they might be impressive in some ways but they are usually built upon the misfortune of others. Either way, nothing good ever came from civilisations crashing and burning, the way forward is more peaceful cooperation.

Everybody involved have messed up big time and it is a shameful spectacle the UK is giving.

This mess is mainly created by Cameron and the Tories with the help of the populists on the far right. The referendum was held for selfish reasons by people who clearly care more about their own careers than what happens to the people. Maybe not so surprising when the religion they follow nowadays is quite literally selfishness.

[rstofer]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/11/uk-stands-down-6000-no-deal-brexit-staff-after-spending-15bn

UK stands down 6,000 no-deal Brexit staff - after spending £1.5bn

Civil service to stand down its no-deal contingency plans in light of new departure date

The government has stood down an army of 6,000 civil servants who had been preparing for a no-deal Brexit, at an estimated cost of £1.5bn.

The civil servants who had been seconded from elsewhere will now return to their normal duties, but there is no clear role for an estimated 4,500 new recruits after article 50 was extended until Halloween.

More than 16,000 civil servants in total have been working on Brexit.

You know... money that could have gone to the NHS.

In other words, 4500 civil servants will immediately leave the payroll as redundant and the 1500 others will return to their previous positions which apparently didn't miss them all that much so perhaps they should leave the payroll as well.

How much do you want to bet that nobody leaves the payroll and the numbers are an accounting game.  And the people already on the payroll had to work on something so it might as well be Brexit.

[apis]

The Founding Fathers didn't want a strong central government (think modern day EU/Brussels) because they simply didn't trust governments - any governments, including the one they were creating. 

The European Union does not have a strong central government like the USA. Everything about EU is designed to be weak and decentralised and democratic. That is the main reason for many of the problems right now, because EU have no power to do anything about anything if there is the slightest disagreement. As is evident by the whole Brexit spectacle: if the UK wants to leave they can leave. The EU is based on voluntary cooperation.

So, conceding that there would be a strong central government, they gave the people the right to protest against such government (1st Amendment) and the ability to keep the 1st Amendment with the 2d Amendment.  Everything else is derived from there.  It's not a quirk or whim that these are the first two amendments.

So much for the First Amendmend:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/12/julian-assange-extradition-wikileaks-america-crimes

[SilverSolder]

The European Union does not have a strong central government like the USA.

That is correct, everything the EU does has to be agreed by all 28 members (in both the Council and the European Parliament).

There is real power behind 28 countries agreeing on something, whatever that "something" is!

The downside is that it can take a long time (and lots of patient negotiations) to get agreements in place.  But even that process has advantages, since most "bad ideas" never make it to the implementation stage, and even the "good ideas" have been strengthened by so many people being involved.

[rstofer]

So much for the First Amendmend:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/12/julian-assange-extradition-wikileaks-america-crimes

The First Amendment doesn't cover stealing classified information and then publishing it.  Whether Assange stole the information or got Manning to do it for him doesn't change the charges which revolve around domestic terrorism.  His actions seriously endangered service members serving in the Middle East (and elsewhere).

Whether he is extradited is up to UK courts, whether he is convicted will subsequently be up to US courts.  It will be years and years before the trial is over.  He'll likely die of old age before this case is adjudicated.  He looked pretty ragged when they arrested him in the UK.

There is some issue about Statute of Limitations, he might have hidden out long enough that he can't be charged.  Obviously, the DOJ isn't accepting this argument. 

Manning was sentenced to 35 years until Obama cut it to 7 and he got out for time served.  Meanwhile the taxpayers paid for his sex change operation.  Manning did have a charge of 'aiding the enemy' and that carries the death penalty.

There is another argument about whether Assange is 'media' and the 'freedom of the press' even applies.

We'll see! 

[Rick Law]

So much for the First Amendmend:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/12/julian-assange-extradition-wikileaks-america-crimes

The First Amendment doesn't cover stealing classified information and then publishing it.  Whether Assange stole the information or got Manning to do it for him doesn't change the charges which revolve around domestic terrorism. His actions seriously endangered service members serving in the Middle East (and elsewhere).

Whether he is extradited is up to UK courts, whether he is convicted will subsequently be up to US courts.  It will be years and years before the trial is over.  He'll likely die of old age before this case is adjudicated.  He looked pretty ragged when they arrested him in the UK.

There is some issue about Statute of Limitations, he might have hidden out long enough that he can't be charged.  Obviously, the DOJ isn't accepting this argument. 

Manning was sentenced to 35 years until Obama cut it to 7 and he got out for time served.  Meanwhile the taxpayers paid for his sex change operation.  Manning did have a charge of 'aiding the enemy' and that carries the death penalty.

There is another argument about whether Assange is 'media' and the 'freedom of the press' even applies.

We'll see!

[ RL: Bold added ]

re: "... The First Amendment doesn't cover stealing classified information and then publishing it.  Whether Assange stole the information or got Manning to do it for him doesn't change the charges which revolve around domestic terrorism. ..."

June, 1971: The Supreme Court ruled in the "Pentagon Papers" case that NY Times has the First Amendment right to publish the Pentagon Papers.  The ruling was made with full consideration of NY Times fully knew that the papers were stolen, and its exposure being damaging to US Defense/ war effort.  As long as NY Times did not did not participate in the theft, NY Times was in the clear and has the First Amendment right to publish.

The notable Alan Dershowitz (Professor (emeritus) Harvard Law)  commented on the Manning/Wikileak case noting that there is "no constitutional difference between WikiLeaks and The New York Times" ...

You can read Dershowitz comments here:
^{https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/438578-alan-dershowitz-is-julian-assange-another-pentagon-papers-case}

By the way, that is why right now the case is the allegation that Wikileak assisted in Manning's computer break in instead of a case of Wikileak publishing the info.

[Edit: broken link fixed]

[rstofer]

All of the above is correct.   The NY Times didn't participate in the theft and had every right to publish the papers.  The case against Assange is based on his involvement with the theft.  Did he, or did he not, conspire with Manning to steal the documents.

A secondary consiideration is whether Assange and WikiLeaks are legitimate media sources.  The NY Times clearly is a media outlet, maybe the case for WikiLeaks is not so clearcut.  Just because somebody has a web site and a keyboard doesn't make them a media outlet nor does it give them 1st Amendment protections.

We'll see!  That's what the trial is set to establish.

The military should have never dropped the death penalty against Manning and Obama should have never commuted his sentence.  Manning should have been a poster child for what happens when you disclose classified information.

The Rosenbergs were executed in 1953 for providing Russia with the designs for our nuclear weapons.

[apis]

I see, the First Amendment only applies as long as you don't criticise the system. And if the justice system doesn't do what the politicians want (murder dissidents) they punish people by legally harassing and persecuting them until the day they die. Or why not incite a mob to do the job for you, who needs courts! So much for civil rights, freedom of speech and the rule of law in the US these days. What was the term... loophole politics? banana republic?

This thread was originally about robots.

[soldar]

To be honest I think we are getting into topics that do not lend themselves to quiet discussion and will probably result in tempers flaring and moderators intervening so I would ask everybody to please keep away from these topics or we risk getting the thread locked.  Just my humble opinion.

[snx]

Another very intersting question is:

Does taxation of anything makes any usefull sense. Or more precisely, does the current system makes sense.

By creating a continous source of income, thats not directly connected to a result, is generating the motivation to just be lazy, or use up the income.

[Rick Law]

To be honest I think we are getting into topics that do not lend themselves to quiet discussion and will probably result in tempers flaring and moderators intervening so I would ask everybody to please keep away from these topics or we risk getting the thread locked.  Just my humble opinion.

You are quite right.  First Amendment discussion really doesn't belong in this thread.

While I had not made any comments about BREXIT, I think BREXIT in some ways do belong.  Depending on the nation's law, taxation applies to citizenry of the nation and to non-citizen who works within that nation.  For citizens of the USA, USA citizens owe the USA income tax even if the income is earned in another country.  So to the extend that EU/UK differs in taxation, BREXIT has an impact.

[Zero999]

To be honest I think we are getting into topics that do not lend themselves to quiet discussion and will probably result in tempers flaring and moderators intervening so I would ask everybody to please keep away from these topics or we risk getting the thread locked.  Just my humble opinion.

This whole thread is off topic and political which breaks the rules. I'm surprised it hasn't been locked.

I'm impressed at how well-behaved most people here have been, discussing controversial subjects such as tax and Brexit.

Automation and cheap labour are interesting subjects. They both cause job losses in high wages areas, yet seem to only increase prosperity. Governments can't really directly tax automation, but they can tax energy. Cheap labour can also be taxed by tariffs on products from low wage countries. Immigration is a bit of a headache for the UK at the moment. Yes, cheap migrant labour does cause economic growth, but is that because it increases the population size? I'm not convinced that it really improves living standards, which have fallen in the UK since the doors have opened to eastern Europe, although it could be coincidental. People who criticise immigration are labelled racist xenophobes, by the liberals, but everyone's entitled to their opinion. It's true that migrants from the same places stick together, forming ghettos, as can be seen with Brits living in Spain, various ethnic groups in the UK, which can cause social problems, if it's not managed properly.

I'm well aware that the rest of the world thinks the UK has gone full retard on Brexit, apart from the US far right perhaps, but how many others have thought about why some people want to leave? I saw an Australian politician, I can't remember who, criticising Brexit but would they support Australia joining the EU's single market, including the high levels of immigration which will probably come with it? I don't think so.

[soldar]

Governments need money to function (and in the case of Spain to waste and steal in huge quantities) but the tax structure must be carefully designed so it does not discourage economic activity and productivity. 

One of the major causes of the economy being so bad in Spain is the terrible tax structure. Taxing energy is what the geniuses in Spain do and the result is industries that use large amounts of energy are not competitive and go elsewhere. Aluminum manufacturer Alcoa just closed a factory in northern Spain.

In my view it is bad to have a culture where the people believe they are owed jobs (meaning salaries) and that the government should protect them from competition from automation, imports, or any other cause. The result of protectionism in any way, shape or form is always that the general public pays higher prices for lower quality products.

[apis]

To be honest I think we are getting into topics that do not lend themselves to quiet discussion and will probably result in tempers flaring and moderators intervening so I would ask everybody to please keep away from these topics or we risk getting the thread locked.  Just my humble opinion.

This whole thread is off topic and political which breaks the rules. I'm surprised it hasn't been locked.

I'm impressed at how well-behaved most people here have been, discussing controversial subjects such as tax and Brexit.

Agreed and personally I won't shed any tears if the thread is locked. I found the original topic about tax of robots to be somewhat interesting. Automation will not stop and there need to be some way for people to make a living in the future, there's a lot that can be said about that. Then it turned into another Brexit thread. It presented an opportunity to correct some misconceptions about the EU though, so maybe something good came out of it.

I'm well aware that the rest of the world thinks the UK has gone full retard on Brexit, apart from the US far right perhaps, but how many others have thought about why some people want to leave?

They think so too, they just think the USA benefits from a weak EU and and an even weaker UK which would be easier for them to manipulate. (I'm aware that's not the majority view in the US though.)

[Rick Law]

Governments need money to function (and in the case of Spain to waste and steal in huge quantities) but the tax structure must be carefully designed so it does not discourage economic activity and productivity. 

One of the major causes of the economy being so bad in Spain is the terrible tax structure. Taxing energy is what the geniuses in Spain do and the result is industries that use large amounts of energy are not competitive and go elsewhere. Aluminum manufacturer Alcoa just closed a factory in northern Spain.

In my view it is bad to have a culture where the people believe they are owed jobs (meaning salaries) and that the government should protect them from competition from automation, imports, or any other cause. The result of protectionism in any way, shape or form is always that the general public pays higher prices for lower quality products.

The issue of "robot tax" goes beyond keeping government function.  As I brought up before the thread gone full BREXIT, robots are getting more and more capable.  There will be a point when robots are improved to a point where robots out perform 50% of the human population, and then there will be a point when robots out perform 90% the population...  So eventually, we get to a percentage where almost all human are out performed by robots.  What then?

If you accept my premise that "robot outperforms a certain percentage of humans and the percentage keep increasing.  Somewhere between 10% to 99.99%, society will break down."   The acceptance of this premise implies that you also accept "we must do something to changes how society functions" or you accept that "civilization as we know it would be gone."

Taxing robo-workers may be a way, upgrading humans by enhancing human capability with technology may be is another way.  I don't really like the idea that my grand-children are Borgs, but may be that is inevitable.

I am a small government low tax guy.  ie: I personally would not like robot-worker tax either.  So I am eagerly awaiting some clever suggestion this forum may bring.

[Zero999]

I don't accept that robots replacing humans in all jobs is 100% certainty, but I wouldn't say it's an impossible either. In any case, I cant see it happening in my lifetime and even the next generation's is probably unrealistic.

I doubt computers will achieve the same conscience and awareness levels as humans and the idea of them becoming self-replicating is very unlikely. Even if building a computer with the capability of human consciousness becomes a possibility, I doubt it will become popular, because it would defeat the purpose of giving jobs to machines: they don't get bored, tired etc.

As machines improve, humans just do less work and what they do is better paid and I can't see this changing any time soon.

Any tax theoretically is burden on the economy, unless it's reinvested into something which will improve the economy such as transport infrastructure and welfare programmes which make more people employable and get them into work. Some taxes may be bad for the economy, but it could be argued that it's a fair price to pay for environmental reasons, i.e. energy taxes on the most polluting fuels. The only downside is the pollution just moves abroad, which is what's happened in the UK: no one wants to shit in their own backyard!

[rstofer]

If you accept my premise that "robot outperforms a certain percentage of humans and the percentage keep increasing.  Somewhere between 10% to 99.99%, society will break down."   The acceptance of this premise implies that you also accept "we must do something to changes how society functions" or you accept that "civilization as we know it would be gone."

The tax money to support those who can't or don't want to work has to come from somewhere and it can't keep coming at the same total amount from fewer and fewer workers to more and more non-workers.

I have no idea how it's going to work out.  Raising the minimum wage increases the use of robotics as the low end jobs are the easiest to automate.  Walmart is going all in on janitorial robots and this should cause some alarm.  Taxing the robots?  Beats me!  But one thing is certain, Walmart won't be the only company doing this.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/05/walmart-will-use-hundreds-of-ai-robot-janitors-to-scrub-store-floors.html

And Amazon:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/10/technology/amazon-robots-workers.html

I started working on Numerical Control machines way back in '69.  Over the 50 years since, I have seen some pretty staggering changes.  Heck, today everybody has CNC Mills and 3D Printers in their garage workshops.  The next 50 years should be exciting!