this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2024
488 points (96.2% liked)
Technology
59153 readers
2286 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
$7,000,000,000,000? It's a good thing we won't tax it ever at all in any capacity! Not while there's Single Mothers overdrawn on their Bank Accounts! #SaveTheTrillionaires!
I get the joke/point that you're making, but usually a company's investment into research, development, expansion, etc is tax exempt. Hopefully even the most serious critics of our current capatalist economy would agree that these types of investments should be tax exempt, because it means paying more salaries or purchasing goods and services from other companies, which again means more salaries. Generally, these aren't c-level salaries either because usually the c-suite is not producing the goods and services required.
If those investments then net a huge profit that goes to a few individuals, then yes, those profits should be taxed, unavoidably and fairly.
If a company uses "b" or "t" in it's financial numbers, then the companies should have the piss taxed out of them. There is no justifiable reason for numbers that large to be tax free in literally any context.
Unless they are being donated to good causes.
The CEO: creating a shell company as fast as possible, "for donating"
Hence my "good" comment; I was going to expand on that but assumed it would be interpreted correctly.
Can my research into getting rich be tax exempt, too? It's not like these are going to become public knowledge. This fucker's going to patent everything and keep anyone else from using it.
Patenting actual inventions is absolutely necessary for industrial research to be viable. Being a patent troll is the problem. The US patent office needs to be expanded, probably doubled, to address the issue. I don't know how well equipped other nation's patent offices are.
Patents require the disclosure of the invention so that it can be copied by others after 20 years.
That's a bunch of nonsense. Taxes apply to INCOME, so any expenses are automatically tax exempt.
Nope. Companies expanding AI in order to replace workers or at the very least increase productivity without increasing wages does not in any way, shape or form mean "more salaries".
Bullshit. It's true that the C-suite doesn't produce anything, but they're the first to get a raise when things go well and the last to be fired (and even then, usually with a golden parachute equivalent to several years' pay of the average worker) when things go less well.
Companies don't have income, they have revenue and profits. Revenue minus Costs (which include salaries, investments, materials, etc) equals Profits. The costs get detailed into different buckets which tracks investments into the company itself versus expenses that the company needs to pay to continue operating. An important number is the return on investments (ROI). A high enough ROI means the company makes more from investing in itself than it would from using the money for any other purpose.
I wasn't talking specifically about an AI company, but companies in general. The investment in AI discussed in the original article is not about immediately developing additional AI programs, but rather about expanding the production of semiconductor manufacturing to meet the needs of chips for AI. A reasonable argument could be made that this will eventually eliminate jobs. Counter arguments would likely point out that the nature of jobs would change. Personally, I think that AI is going to become a larger part of our society and we need to think about the ways that we need to react to that. It likely means investing in better education, because some of the first jobs to go will be jobs which require low intellectual contributions. I don't think it will replace jobs which require a great degree of physical manipulation however, because robotics are simply not at that level yet.
Regarding your point about c-suite raises, I addressed this very point in the last paragraph of my prior comment.
The theory is solid, but in reality there's often abuse of these laws and suddenly you have Hollywood Accounting.