There’s lots of stuff that could be considered innovation that is intentionally stifled due to competition laws or security concerns.
I agree that some innovation can be harmful. I guess what I meant was “we should avoid disincentivizing innovation unless necessary.” The way I see it, though, job lots from automation is both inevitable and fairly easy to fix (as you said, UBI), so there’s no reason to try to stop it from happening.
Really, I think automation should be encouraged. It frees people from usually-undesirable jobs and allows them time to pursue different careers or other interests. As long as we have ways to deal with the unemployment I think it’s a huge positive for people.
they should have to continue paying taxes for those roles because the newly unemployed will need government support.
I fully agree that there will need to be a tax increase to cover support for the newly-unemployed, but why not make that a general increase on businesses and wealthy individuals? If anything, this would be and incentive for automation as a way to decrease rising business costs.
Innovation has removed jobs before, and we dealt with it. I don’t see businesses being taxed for using computers instead of human calculators. I don’t see why this innovation is different.
Well I think we are both headed in the same direction and close to agreeing with one another, but with that said I don’t see it as a disincentive more so just a way to get the necessary costs from a company that is adapting. As for why not just increase taxes, yes do but you can do both. If a company is turning over millions and millions with only a few staff because everything is automated we should look at getting the value toward the exchequer that the automation replaced. Certain taxes go to certain funds, and employment taxes are different to corporate taxes. The costs associated with employment generally directly feed into social insurances etc. So it is important to keep that revenue stream active or social insurances would need more money from the general tax pool instead of getting it from employers.
As for why now and not before, we kissed out before and we are very much suffering as a result. Production has increased in orders of magnitude and wages have stagnated, we need to think differently and the sooner we evaluate these roles the sooner we can put a value on the automated service. It is a nebulous and difficult areasl to draw a line but that doesn’t mean a line isn’t required. And I get that not being able to perfectly explain why a cashier being replaced should be taxed but someone replaced by a calculator shouldn’t but the fact is regulations and laws have arbitrary basis, like minimum age to run for president and height to become an officer. The line had to be drawn so it was and we adapt to that.
I’m also no saying close the discussion forever, the President should be whoever gets the most votes full stop…provided they’re legitimate votes and the candidate isn’t actively standing trial for crimes committed in office.
I agree that some innovation can be harmful. I guess what I meant was “we should avoid disincentivizing innovation unless necessary.” The way I see it, though, job lots from automation is both inevitable and fairly easy to fix (as you said, UBI), so there’s no reason to try to stop it from happening.
Really, I think automation should be encouraged. It frees people from usually-undesirable jobs and allows them time to pursue different careers or other interests. As long as we have ways to deal with the unemployment I think it’s a huge positive for people.
I fully agree that there will need to be a tax increase to cover support for the newly-unemployed, but why not make that a general increase on businesses and wealthy individuals? If anything, this would be and incentive for automation as a way to decrease rising business costs.
Innovation has removed jobs before, and we dealt with it. I don’t see businesses being taxed for using computers instead of human calculators. I don’t see why this innovation is different.
Well I think we are both headed in the same direction and close to agreeing with one another, but with that said I don’t see it as a disincentive more so just a way to get the necessary costs from a company that is adapting. As for why not just increase taxes, yes do but you can do both. If a company is turning over millions and millions with only a few staff because everything is automated we should look at getting the value toward the exchequer that the automation replaced. Certain taxes go to certain funds, and employment taxes are different to corporate taxes. The costs associated with employment generally directly feed into social insurances etc. So it is important to keep that revenue stream active or social insurances would need more money from the general tax pool instead of getting it from employers.
As for why now and not before, we kissed out before and we are very much suffering as a result. Production has increased in orders of magnitude and wages have stagnated, we need to think differently and the sooner we evaluate these roles the sooner we can put a value on the automated service. It is a nebulous and difficult areasl to draw a line but that doesn’t mean a line isn’t required. And I get that not being able to perfectly explain why a cashier being replaced should be taxed but someone replaced by a calculator shouldn’t but the fact is regulations and laws have arbitrary basis, like minimum age to run for president and height to become an officer. The line had to be drawn so it was and we adapt to that.
I’m also no saying close the discussion forever, the President should be whoever gets the most votes full stop…provided they’re legitimate votes and the candidate isn’t actively standing trial for crimes committed in office.