The MSE Debate House Prices Manifesto

michaels

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Robots don't pay the taxes on income and consumption that are required for the NHS and Pensions of the rapidly increasing elderly population. Nor do they take a share of the national debt...

'Many hands make light work'.

When it comes to digging ditches if some of those hands are machines it doesn't matter.

When it comes to paying down the national debt or funding the pension and NHS systems, the machines just sit there looking at the far fewer humans who now have a much bigger share each to pay....

But the robots do have to be designed, built, programmed, leased etc etc - basically any money for 'robot services' will become someone's income or profit and thus taxable.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

michaels wrote: »

basically any money for 'robot services' will become someone's income or profit and thus taxable.

Aye but mostly through some big corporate's holding company in Liechtenstein no doubt.

Which doesn't really help....;)

kabayiri

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Aye but mostly through some big corporate's holding company in Liechtenstein no doubt.

Which doesn't really help....;)

I think you've been sat around too many Socialist SNP fanatics up there Hamish !

You've gone lefty

The argument about robots taking away human jobs. This same argument could have been levied against the computer.

So what do we have now? There's a computer in your phone; one possibly on your lap; one sat in your telly; and a bunch of em sat in your car colluding on the next vicious bend in the road. In the past if I wanted bad directions I had to take my better half on the journey.

Once there is a viable and flexible robot which doesn't look like a nastier half-cousin of RoboCop those big old friendly corporations will be flogging them in their millions. "I Robot" - no ; iRobot - sure ... U2 will sing folk songs about it.

Even a cynic like Will Smith was eventually cajoled into supporting them.

kabayiri

michaels wrote: »

But the robots do have to be designed, built, programmed, leased etc etc - basically any money for 'robot services' will become someone's income or profit and thus taxable.

Obviously, inspired by human history, robots will start to make robots.

This will seem a good thing at first, but some robots will suspect that it is only profiting the great robot overlords in Silicon Towers.

I refuse to become some robot's pet .... unless I am promised 3 square meals a day and my tummy tickled.

michaels

kabayiri wrote: »

I think you've been sat around too many Socialist SNP fanatics up there Hamish !

You've gone lefty

The argument about robots taking away human jobs. This same argument could have been levied against the computer.

So what do we have now? There's a computer in your phone; one possibly on your lap; one sat in your telly; and a bunch of em sat in your car colluding on the next vicious bend in the road. In the past if I wanted bad directions I had to take my better half on the journey.

Once there is a viable and flexible robot which doesn't look like a nastier half-cousin of RoboCop those big old friendly corporations will be flogging them in their millions. "I Robot" - no ; iRobot - sure ... U2 will sing folk songs about it.

Even a cynic like Will Smith was eventually cajoled into supporting them.

Now we have an electric car, whenever anyone else mentions a car I have to paraphrase I, Robot and say 'You have an ICE vehicle? How quaint but please tell me this doesn't run on gas! Gas explodes, you know?'

Most leading scientists see the point where machine intelligence and physical ability will surpass human kind in the next 20-30 years then it will just be a matter of whether they decide to keep us as pets.

tincans6

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

When it comes to digging ditches if some of those hands are machines it doesn't matter.

There is zero difference between machine digging ditches and machines looking after people.

Your obsession with house prices is starting to addle your brain.

purch

kabayiri wrote: »

Is it more likely to work if you throw billions of yen at it?

Can't see how £ 4.80 will help much :eek:

CLAPTON

padington wrote: »

If savings ( of which a pension if one version ) are invested in innovation in the here and now, then they do contribute to the total volume of goods and services in an obvious and real way. They essentially make new goods and new services come to life, they have the potential to reinvent the whole game and reinvigorate society.

pensions may or may not be usefully invested: do you consider that buying government debt is useful investment?

if you want to invest in new inventions then do so: no point in putting money in pension company which is likely to be very cautious.

A funded future is no better than an unfunded future for the UK as a whole.

CLAPTON

Perelandra wrote: »

While this may well be true (it's an interesting take that I hadn't previously thought about), the "population" would be the worldwide population- meaning you could still improve the lot of the "British" by implementing this policy.


For example (to take it to an extreme)- if there was a requirement to invest the children's pension entirely in countries where UK investors are currently underindexed (for example, US equity which is overindexed at present by US investors), then come 40 years time, the Brits would own a greater share of the US economy than they currently would be projected to.


Ending up with the Brits as a whole having a larger share of the World economy. So such a policy, even if what you say is true (which it probably is), would still end up with "us" being better off... so might be an interesting policy for "us" to bring in!

well

the current situation is we (the UK) are net borrowers not net savers: there is no prospect of us living off the world in 40 years time unless we start exporting much more and consuming much less.
You only have to look at typically 'UK' companies to see how many are in fact owned overseas : we will be supporting them in the future and not the other way round.

CLAPTON

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Robots don't pay the taxes on income and consumption that are required for the NHS and Pensions of the rapidly increasing elderly population. Nor do they take a share of the national debt...

'Many hands make light work'.

When it comes to digging ditches if some of those hands are machines it doesn't matter.

When it comes to paying down the national debt or funding the pension and NHS systems, the machines just sit there looking at the far fewer humans who now have a much bigger share each to pay....

tractors and combine harvesters don't pay taxes.

It is the production of goods and services that a country produces that matter and not some strange equation between a person and a robot.