Soldato
Below average/minimum wage @ 40 hours/week.If 37.5k isn't significant pay, then what does my 15k mean?
Again not a significant amount against cost of living.
Below average/minimum wage @ 40 hours/week.If 37.5k isn't significant pay, then what does my 15k mean?
People who earn over 37.5k shouldn't pay more tax. It's not a significant amount of pay, particularly unless you're living in cheap areas.
All the proposals for a flat tax I've seen involve a major overhaul of the system writ large to prevent the loopholes and schemes.
With a flat rate it's also psychologically different as a high earner doesn't feel like they're being penalised unfairly.
They also mention overhauling things like VAT etc which is a regressive tax.
Same, i'm against anything that gives to people that don't work for no reason other than laziness.
I think we're going to have to do that. I think the current socio-economic system will not be sustainable for much longer and will be changed. Either in a managed way or a chaotic way, but definitely changed. I don't see mass employment being possible for much longer due to advances in technology. I think employment will become a minority thing and I think it will happen in decades rather than centuries. Hopefully it won't be too bad before I die because I don't see any sign of a plan to deal with it. I'll probably be dead in 20-30 years, so I think I might well be OK.
I think we're going to have to do that. I think the current socio-economic system will not be sustainable for much longer and will be changed. Either in a managed way or a chaotic way, but definitely changed. I don't see mass employment being possible for much longer due to advances in technology. I think employment will become a minority thing and I think it will happen in decades rather than centuries. Hopefully it won't be too bad before I die because I don't see any sign of a plan to deal with it. I'll probably be dead in 20-30 years, so I think I might well be OK.
The "self-made man" who gets to the top "purely by his own hard work" is a myth.It’s not luck, it’s hard work.
Indeed, but then we've never been faced with a technological revolution that has the potential to replace so many jobs, in such a wide range of industry sectors and so quickly, as with the rise of AI and automation.People have been (incorrectly) predicting the end of employment and economic catastrophy since forever.
I don't think we could create a successful economic model where the majority did no work. It's certainly never been done before...I think we're going to have to do that. I think the current socio-economic system will not be sustainable for much longer and will be changed. Either in a managed way or a chaotic way, but definitely changed. I don't see mass employment being possible for much longer due to advances in technology. I think employment will become a minority thing and I think it will happen in decades rather than centuries. Hopefully it won't be too bad before I die because I don't see any sign of a plan to deal with it. I'll probably be dead in 20-30 years, so I think I might well be OK.
Can we even have ever-improving AI?Indeed, but then we've never been faced with a technological revolution that has the potential to replace so many jobs, in such a wide range of industry sectors and so quickly, as with the rise of AI and automation.
It's quite possible that, as before in history, new technology breeds new jobs. What's less clear is whether the pace of new job creation will be able to keep up with the rate of job absorption by the machines. Not only do we need to invent new jobs, but we also need to invent new jobs that can't be automated by the ever-improving AI.
The "self-made man" who gets to the top "purely by his own hard work" is a myth.
Surely nobody is that ego-centric that they believe their own hard work is 100% of the reason for their success?
I'm not saying they don't work hard; just that there are always environmental factors at play also. Not the least of which is what parents you had.
People have been (incorrectly) predicting the end of employment and economic catastrophy since forever.
Well the flip-side is the statement that "No, not everyone can get to the top by hard work alone."It depends what you mean by the top. My cousin is the owner of a construction company with a multi million turnover after starting life as a plasterer. He wasn't gifted any advantage other than having parents who weren't drug addicts or abusive.
I also know several people from my background who now run very successful and lucrative companies who started with nothing and weren't gifted a large amount of capital. It depends how far down the deprivation ladder you go if you want to claim their success is in some part based on environmental factors.
If you are talking CEO of multinationals, then you may have a point as wealthy parents can pay for education and networking to allow their children to have a head start. However people generally don't stay head of companies without some skill and expertise and there are plenty of very wealthy parents with complete screw up children.
Well if you want to be pedantic, I’m sure it’s not infinitely exponential, but that misses the point of my post.Can we even have ever-improving AI?
It's a fairly young field at the moment so advances are being made rapidly. Or perhaps not young per-se but relatively recently seen a large amount of effort directed towards it.
But perhaps it can't be "ever improving" to the same degree as today. Materials have finite performance capabilities, governed by the laws of physics. We're also constrained by the amount of energy we can harness at any given time (and the associated costs).
But they'd lose the tax free portion of their income which is equivalent to the £48 per week (more or less). So they wouldn't be better off. The only people better off are those who do not work, no?
Indeed... though the same arguments will keep on getting presented that this time it is different because [reasons]. In this case super duper magical AI.
I wasn't being even slightly pedantic.Well if you want to be pedantic, I’m sure it’s not infinitely exponential, but that misses the point of my post.
AI isn’t even the issue, it’s whether or not we can actually create jobs that aren’t awful for people to do, because they certainly don’t seem to be making people feel great as it is, sedentary, wasting away on some derivative excel program that a programmer could easily replace the work for.
Ultimately it’s down to lethargic companies not evolving for whatever reason that is keeping a good chunk of the workforce employed, I can’t remember where it was said... but around a third of the service sector is deadweight.
Kind of what it seems like to me. Anyone over £37.5k loses, People earning under that stay the same and people who don’t work gain £200 a month extra. Sounds like typical Labour.
It does sound like it would help to lift some people out of poverty though.
Well the flip-side is the statement that "No, not everyone can get to the top by hard work alone."
Because nobody believes this is true.
Therefore there must be more to it than hard work.
I would suggest support networks play a large role, as do genetics, parenting, etc.