And the thing is, heck, if you really want to tax AI because it's bad or whatever, fine, at least put the revenues in the general fund. It's a bonus to help fund government.
I'm not really for that, but it's less bad.
It's the direct connection between this one unreliable funding source and this one important program that's exponentially more problematic.
Governments do this stuff all the time, and it causes trouble.
One more point to consider: if government is funded by the bad thing, it causes a conflict of interests where government gets more money the more the bad thing is done.
@volkris @radiojammor Thanks for adding your thoughts!
In no way did i say AI is "bad."
It will, however, affect vast swaths of the labor market, and it behooves and the gov't to fully understand pitfalls that arise from technological progress. There is a human and societal cost to technological advancements at scale, esp w/ late-stage capitalist situations where income disparities are already v wide. especially true w/ tech will further benefit one side of that income disparity.
@volkris @radiojammor it's also pretty apparent to me that corporations are eager to eliminate any labor costs they can with AI solutions. that makes is a cultural justification/tipping point for figuring out how we fund #UBI.
I posted the survey to spark some discourse and gain understanding. working so far!
@cjammet so instead of taxing AI to pay for UBI because of a perception of a connection between the two, I would use the employment threat of AI as an argument to sell UBI to the public to be paid for like any other important government program out of normal government revenues.
Depending on just where we're talking about, often the problem is that the public is not sold on UBI in the first place. It's not about finding funding for it, but about convincing the public that it is worth funding in the first place.
We know where the funding can come from. It's just that the public doesn't agree to do it.
