• 17 Posts
  • 13 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: May 13th, 2023

help-circle





  • The way these are usually envisioned long term is that tax rates go up to progressively eat up the universal payment.

    @Kichae I agree there are many UBI schemes that don’t really deserve the name for various reasons. A true universal basic income, however, could never be eaten up by tax for whatever group of people exactly because it’s universal and basic.

    A possible scheme, for example, would be that a UBI of 1,600 is guaranteed by the state, while every income above the UBI level is then taxed. So if you earn 2,000 and the tax rate is 40%, your tax amounts to (2,000 - 1,600)*0.4 = 160.

    An income of 1,600 would mean you pay no taxes at all as the 1,600 is the UBI, and any income below 1,600 triggered a negative tax rate (for example, if one earned 1,000 they would be given 600 from the state).

    In a nutshell: a real UBI can never be lowered by tax or any other public measures. Practically all researchers agree that this a very important feature of any UBI, no matter how it is designed.

















  • @dax @squashkin The latest news describe what I said in this thread:

    A lawyer for Twitter owner Elon Musk accused Microsoft of misusing the service’s data and demanded an audit from the software giant.

    The letter primarily addresses a seemingly narrow set of alleged infractions by Microsoft in drawing information from Twitter’s database of tweets. But the move could foreshadow more serious developments. Musk has previously accused Microsoft and its partner OpenAI in a tweet of “illegally” using Twitter data to develop sophisticated AI systems such as ChatGPT.

    The race for the next jackpot is on. Who, and how many of us, will benefit?







  • But I’m also allowed to want what I want too, which is why I won’t be joining team ban-computational-modeling

    Absolutely. And I am absolutely joining the team ‘computational modeling’, too. I don’t reject this. What I say is that we might need different economic and legal models making sure that everyone can take advantage of this new tech rather than just a few.

    To give a an example: If a tech company uses billions of data for free to train its model on but then claims the copyright for the result, it would certainly increase inequality. For example, a lot of photographers or writers wouldn’t earn much money anymore, as their work could just be ‘created’ by some AI.

    So I don’t join the ‘ban-computational-modeling’ team, I just want to see that it is a technology for everyone. Otherwise we will see just a few more tech billionaires while the mass of people is paying the bill as it happened so often in human history.