Progressive taxes hit wage earners, while its the owners who will reap the benefits of AI. We won't get a share of the fruits without solving how to properly tax wealth(in a world where money is power, and its trivial for rich people to move to a different tax regime), which unfortunately seems tabu in large parts of the western world.
> Taxes on unrealized capital gains would be a start
A start to what? There is no way of taxing unrealised capital gains that makes sense. You're taxing theoretical value that may or may not actually exist. Rebates (e.g. you're taxed on theoretical current value, but when you realise the actual gain, you get back the difference if there is any) just moves the problem around, makes everything complicated, and penalises attempting growth.
> There is no way of taxing unrealised capital gains that makes sense.
There is - tax it when it is being used as realized gain (e.g. when you get a loan like our billionaires do). fine to leave it alone as unrealized and not be taxed but as soon as you use it as real/tangible thing you gotta pay taxes, it is that simple
Ok, and on the 2nd the price crashes, company goes bankrupt, stock is worth zero. You were taxes on theoretical value that you can't sell at to pay that tax.
For me, a lot of these issues become immaterial if the threshold is high enough. If the threshold for a particular tax is assets over $100 million, or a billion, then the answer can just be "you are totally screwed" and I'm basically fine with that. If you don't want that risk, just don't get that rich.
Now no one has a billion dollars but they have 100 companies they control each worth 10 million.
These lawsuits have to be designed with the idea that the people with the most resources will try to exploit them, and the people with the least resources will be unable to.
I said tax it on the total net worth. Splitting your wealth among different companies shouldn't affect anything.
> These lawsuits have to be designed with the idea that the people with the most resources will try to exploit them, and the people with the least resources will be unable to.
Agreed! That is why the goal needs to be to just directly and explicitly reduce the wealth of those with the most.
Great, i don'trust the government with my pension retirement. Put all my life savings(that i already paid taxes on) on an investment portfolio. Now the government wants a cut on my unrealized gains as well. Do you realize each time the money changes hands it gets taxed? Do you trust the gov to be as effective and as efficent with that money att all?
Is this not just a linguistic issue, where people say normal distributed but actually mean approximate or assumed normality? Its not like height is normally distributed (there is nobody 8 feet tall), but its not like the distribution bares no resemblance to the normal distribution either, and in a colloquial sense the term seems to he used more freely than the mathematical defined term.
Yeah, tail call elimination, is definitely doable.
Python famously does not have it because "Language inventor Guido van Rossum contended that stack traces are altered by tail-call elimination making debugging harder, and preferred that programmers use explicit iteration instead".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tail_call
Because tax is not your bill from 'government Corp ', its your contribution to the community, to your tribe. And we have explicit goals for this, besides bringing revenue (like the strongest back should carry the heaviest burden).
When we have communal contributions in other settings, your contribution is usually not a secret.
It is meant to give the tax system more legitimacy, that you don't gave to wonder if people sneak out of their contribution, you can check. It also leads to yearly debates about the tax system as the list of the richest(usually inherited) is published together with what they pay in income tax vs wealth tax.
Previously you could check up anyone anonymous. These days you have to log inn, and they get a notification. But the list of the richest and their tax contribution gets published in the newspaper.
This has also the effect of fueling envy, and allows employers to discriminate you if they see that you have side income (or if you don't). Why make all of this fuss about RGPD if private data is in the open?
And why not include medical data as well? The "tribe" has the right to know how much each one costs, right?
It is usually those with little power that suffer when you do that, and those with a lot of power that suffer from financial openness. I ask this in the most naive way possible I think the Pandora Leak was a good thing, do you not agree?
Richer people have many ways to protect themselves from society, unlike poorer people who have to bear the envy of others and can't escape it. Just ask any homeless person.
A rich man can just (and likely should, given the comments here) leave the Swedish crab basket.
Having society obsessed with watching how their neighbor is doing is a very good way to get everyone to look away, while, in the case of Sweden, a single family owns a large part of the stock exchange.
First, lets me clarrify that I am trying to explain how this practise is justified in Norway, I am not arguing for or against it. Some of the justification is pure cultural traits, which you can try to understand even if you dont agree with them yourself. Also note that this is not completely non-controversal, but it seems like the current setup (where you need to log in to search, in addition to the public lists in the newspaper) has reasonable strong support.
This has also the effect of fueling envy
Yeah, I guess the same feeling can look like both "envy" and "sense of justice", depending on where you see it from. But we can't protect everyone from their feelings.
and allows employers to discriminate you if they see that you have side income (or if you don't).
I have never heard about this, and I don't really see the dynamic here. What definitely IS a effect is that it makes it a bit harder for employers to give employees with equal tasks very different salaries.
Why make all of this fuss about RGPD if private data is in the open?
Because this is seen as, at least partially, public data.
And why not include medical data as well? The "tribe" has the right to know how much each one costs, right?
No. And this is where you must just belive me when I say that this is just a truth about the cultue, most people (in Scandinavia) would not agree with argument. Your contribution is public, your weakness is private.
Let me give an example: The local kid socker team is organizing a cup, and the parrents need to help organizing, making and selling cookies, etc. This is organized through an app, where you sign up for tasks, and everyone can see what you are commiting to contribute. The same team also have an arrangement where the(small) membership fee can be waivered if you can't afford it, or you can get help buying equipment(shoes) for your kid. This is handled by you letting the trainer know in private, and he will discretely handle it.
Common citizens aren't supposed to be blockwarts judging who deserves or not their money.
> But we can't protect everyone from their feelings.
We can protect ourselves from the feeling of others by not sharing this data.
> equal tasks very different salaries
Unless you are an unqualified factory worker on a line with quantifiable output, in a service economy "equal tasks" are highly subjective.
> This is handled by you letting the trainer know in private, and he will discretely handle it.
Maybe the poor kid would rather not tell the trainer that he is poor and face paternalistic attitudes? And the rich kid wouldn't be reminded all the time that he is guilty of having richer parents? Add race/migration and you'll quickly tolerate bullying because of "social reasons".
As I said above, I explain the cultural norms making it seen as acceptable. I am not trying to convince you, and I am certainly not interested in a bunch of random tangental discussions.
Maybe the poor kid would rather not tell the trainer that he is poor and face paternalistic attitudes? And the rich kid wouldn't be reminded all the time that he is guilty of having richer parents? Add race/migration and you'll quickly tolerate bullying because of "social reasons".
It would be the parrent who ask the trainer to have it waived, not the kid. No kid, rich or poor, would know if they received help in paying the bill or buying equipment. The whole point of the example was exactly that while peoples contribution is public, their requirement for support is not, so there would be no cultural acceptance for the arguement "since taxes are open so should healtcare-usage". And again, this is a explanation of the cultural context, it is irrelevant if you feel like that culture is good or bad.
I don't follow. It allows citizenry to identify wage discrimination and other malpractices, people can get paid on the value of their work and not just how good they are at gaming the wage negotiations. Plus most of the civilised world has this thing called a "union" and "workers rights" that generally prevent your imagined scenario from happening.
What has medical data got to do with this? You can't very well go up to a disabled person and say, hey, you cost society more money, maybe you should have been born less disabled, you cost too much, pay more. Societal safety nets exist for a reason, and how much one is compensated for equal labour as your coworker... I don't see how it's related at all to the "make the disabled pay more" eugenics argument.
> It allows citizenry to identify wage discrimination and other malpractices, people can get paid on the value of their work and not just how good they are at gaming the wage negotiations.
Ah yeah, so you are for mob justice. "Value of their work" is a highly subjective topic, which everyone is an expert on, of course.
> Plus most of the civilised world has this thing called a "union" and "workers rights" that generally prevent your imagined scenario from happening.
Worker rights and unions don't prevent employers from setting wages freely with their employees. An employee with 0 revenue has much less negociating power if the employer knows about it.
> you cost too much, pay more
I'm pretty sure people can have envy about the disabled person earning as much as they do while he/she doesn't have to wake up in the morning. Or some disabled person would like to evolve freely in the society without having everyone know about it.
> eugenics argument
Sweden sterilized disabled and socially unfit people for a long time, until 2013, so yeah, I totally see it happening. Incidentally I have seen racial and social mappings made out of the Swedish public data in the past, so it's far from anecdotic.
Thats not at all a leason I learned during my years with game theory. It sounds like a life-lesson completely orthogonal to game-theory.
And wrong I must add, ignoring people who have made an actuall change in the world (although its true that most people end up making very little difference either way).
If only any of their former leaders and one of the most famous people ever had said something like "If you don't cannibalize yourself, someone else will"...
Well maybe that kind of company would've been aggressive about always being competitive, yeah? Instead of whatever Tim Cook is doing...
(I agree with your comment. To add). Fairphone can be gotten with stock Android, but also "/e/OS", which is a fork of LineageOS, and presents itself as both more privacy focused and de-googled than stock Android.
So it also comes down to what kind of OS you want. I find SailfishOS interesting, but I also really like the hardware of the Fairphone.
reply