News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Should economists be more concerned about AI? by speedboat on Wednesday March 01, 2017 @08:55PM (#13770729)
Bill Gates just want doesn't want to pay more in taxes. That's what UBI requires: more taxes. Considerable tax increases, but there it is. Tax the economic beneficiaries of the economy and divest to everyone to bring the top and bottom closer to GDP per capita.
Re:Should economists be more concerned about AI? by massysett on Wednesday March 01, 2017 @09:33PM (#13770922)
Gates is worth $76 billion. US population is over 300 million. So if we liberated Gates of every penny he has, there would be a one-time payment of less than $253 to every American.

The rich do not have enough money to pay for everyone else to be on the dole.

Re:Should economists be more concerned about AI? by speedboat on Wednesday March 01, 2017 @10:33PM (#13771192)
Would Bill Gates personally fund a UBI? No. The claim wasn't is Bill Gates rich enough to personally fund an American UBI. He would still see his taxes rise considerably and would fall within the tax net to fund a UBI. Those taxes would reach far down the income and wealth ladder, but as long as your UBI is below GDP per capita, it's feasible and a nation could fund it, if it so chose.
Re:Should economists be more concerned about AI? by dragonwriter on Wednesday March 01, 2017 @10:45PM (#13771245)
While I support a universal income gradually reaching up to (and eventually perhaps well above) the level at which it could fairly be called a UBI, it is not at all the case that any UBI level up to the pre-UBI GDP per capita is affordable.

A universal income will affect behavior, and through that real GDP; at some levels, it may actually improve GDP by reducing job market friction and better allowing people to retrain, retool, and optimize their contribution and their own returns; OTOH, there's certainly a level at which it draws people out of the labor force in large enough quantities to overwhelm any advantage from reducing friction, crashing real, post-UBI GDP.

Re:Should economists be more concerned about AI? by vorotato on Wednesday March 01, 2017 @09:53PM (#13771028)
Sure but there were over 10 million millionaires in the US last year. If we took just a million a year just from those guys we'd have 30,000 a year per american. I'm not saying we should, but your math sucks.
Re:Should economists be more concerned about AI? by elsewhen on Thursday March 02, 2017 @12:34AM (#13771701)
a millionaire is a person with $1MM or more in net worth. the lion's share of these people have the low single-digits millions, as you would expect. after you take $1MM from them in the first year, they won't have much more to give in the subsequent years. net-worth ≠ income.
Re:Should economists be more concerned about AI? by gozur88 on Friday March 03, 2017 @01:47PM (#13785094)
Would he have to pay more taxes, though? All his wealth is tied up in stock. His income is probably relatively small.

When taxes go up the money actually comes from middle and upper-middle class people who draw a paycheck, not from super-rich people whose net worth goes up by a billion dollars on a good market day and all without generating any taxable income.

Re:Should economists be more concerned about AI? by gpawl on Wednesday March 01, 2017 @09:53PM (#13771024)
Bill Gates has dedicated >90% of his lifetime income to poverty relief projects, and hasn't cured poverty yet.