NewYou can listen to Fox News articles now!
Our socio-economic system is facing There are threats to AI. In our capitalist society, most people rely on work to maintain themselves. In turn, the U.S. government relies heavily on taxing individual workers’ incomes.
As Artificial intelligence is gradually eliminating Job opportunities, more and more people will face severe job insecurity, resulting in corresponding decline in federal income. Radical action is now needed to get rid of the collapse of dystopia and move towards better possibilities.
Specifically, income-based taxes must be replaced with some other form of taxation, and support mechanisms for the unemployed must be adjusted to support large groups of people who will be introduced to the employment market. Given that using artificial intelligence instead of artificial workers is the cause of the problem, commercial use of AI systems should be taxed to compensate Americans for losing wages and federal government losses on income-based taxes.
The revenue collected by the U.S. government is currently based on the basis of taxing work humans.
The motivation for these concerns is Artificial intelligence functions are developing rapidlyAlthough most jobs are safe at present, it is becoming increasingly obvious that AI will eventually perform any task more efficiently and cheaper than people. From manufacturing to customer service, and even creative fields such as writing or music, machines have shown that they can surpass humans.
AI can’t wait: Why we need speed to win
The extensive robots developed will extend the scope of AI to physical work such as construction, healthcare and house cleaning. Although this transition doesn’t happen overnight, it’s inevitable. The company will continue to replace human workers with AI-powered systems because it can save money and increase productivity. The question is not whether AI will take over most of the work, but when.
If we now plan for the social impact of widespread unemployment, the future of robots doing all their jobs could be great. The obvious problem is that without a job, people will not be able to pay for food, housing or anything else. The slightly obvious problem is that the revenue collected by the U.S. government is currently based on taxes on humans.
Added salary, income, Social Security and Medical Insurance Taxes Together, it accounts for more than 80% of federal revenue. As unemployment increases, the tax base will decrease, resulting in a sharp decline in government revenue. Our economy will face the double blow of falling incomes, while more and more people are truly supporting their needs.
AI is reshaping the business. This is how we are leading in China
Traditionally, the issue of supporting non-workers, for example, through welfare or universal basic income (UBI) is offensive to many people because it fundamentally involves taxing the production of workers to support those who do not work. This redistribution of wealth evokes alienation from socialism or communism. Even if we are willing to accept the idea of taxing workers and using that money to support others, which requires a large number of workers to be taxed, we will not be taxed because AI will do their jobs.
However, with AI replaces human workersWe also have an alternative way to fund support mechanisms such as UBI. What we need to do is find a reasonable way to tax the work done by AI and distribute it reasonably to humans.
This proposal is very different from socialism or communism because we do not get one’s work and give it to others. Instead, we will take the benefits of AI/robot efforts and share them with humans.
How Trump’s team makes AI stand for US innovation
Given that AI systems have been trained on a large amount of public data, there is even a compelling economic reason to tax these AI systems and remit funds back to the public. It is considered a licensing fee paid to U.S. citizens using its data.
Of course, many Americans also object to taxing businesses. from Amazon to couples groceriesthe concern is that taxes will be heavy and harmful to the business.
But these companies will save huge savings by replacing workers, who pay between $30,000 and $300,000 a year, robots can easily earn less than $30,000, and annual maintenance and electricity costs are less than $200,000 a year . The savings from non-physical jobs will be greater, because these jobs do not require physical robots, only AI running in the cloud.
Click here for more Fox News comments
As an additional bonus, these AI workers run 24/7 without having to rest. (Please note that the electricity bill will no Too expensive. Training large AI is expensive, but once you get trained, it can be copied multiple times, and each copy can be run on a high-end personal computer with less than $10 a day of electricity. )
when What does an AI-powered robot dosandwiches or cars, it creates new value: the difference between raw materials and final products. Similar values will be generated if robot mines or harvested wood. If humans do this work, then that value will be three ways: employer, human employee, government. However, when the robot completes its work, there are no human employees in the split.
Essentially, I suggest we find a way to bring humans back to this equation. The most obvious way to do this is to tax AI’s jobs and support U.S. citizens through UBI or similar gains.
Click here to get the Fox News app
Admittedly, it is not clear how we can actually measure “AI work” in a reasonable way, but even if it is a fatal flaw in the proposal, it is a matter of motivation AI takes over most jobs Still imminent. Whether it’s taxing AI work or something else, we need to come up with some plans and start implementing it right away.
We can have a bright future where people can live comfortably and focus on their passions rather than working for others. Or, if you want to see an alternative, watch the Hunger Games.
Click here for more information about James O’Brien
Disclaimer: Any opinions expressed in this article are those of the author as a private opinion. Nothing in this article should be construed as a statement related to the author’s professional position in any institution.
