Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Generally, the most efficient thing to tax is the thing you don't want.

What you are proposing is a good thing (greater efficiency) with a negative side effect (tilting economies towards the rich) but rather than tax the bad thing, you're taxing the good thing in order to reduce its negative side effect.

For whatever reason it seems like taxing robots is more socially acceptable than taxing the wealthy.




You really don’t want a couple million unemployed and unemployable citizens at your doorstep one day angry for why they suddenly can’t afford to live. You don’t want it as a government and you don’t want it as a company/corporation.


Back in the 60s, there was the joke that it'd be less expensive to just bribe the Vietnamese instead of fighting them.


Instead of dropping bombs they should have just dropped cigarettes, whiskey, magazines, food, clothing and a variety of American consumer goods.


> For whatever reason it seems like taxing robots is more socially acceptable than taxing the wealthy.

But these two often overlap. If any actual revolutionising automation by robots is coming, only the wealthiest corporations/people can and will afford it. As your parent poster said, robot tax is just trying to make sure that they won't hold on to their money under the mattress until the end of time. Redistribution of wealth is critically important.




Applications are open for YC Summer 2020

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: