111
If AI takes most of our jobs, money as we know it will be over. What then?
(theconversation.com)
this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2025
111 points (88.8% liked)
Technology
75029 readers
810 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- 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, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
AI isn't going to take anyone's job.
We will fire a bunch of workers while delusion nepo babies try to figure out why an autocomplete bot can think critically or do any complex tasks, then they will close their buisness or rehire people after a few years of failure, and it won't impact the owner's quality of life in any way because they have more wealth then they will ever need
We should absolutely have a UBI that's funded by taxing 100% of wealth over a set number and redistributing it perpetually.
Agreed for the most part, but I disagree about the 100% taxes thing. I think we should instead cap inheritance/gifts, not income. You can be as wealthy as you want, but once you die, it all goes back to the common pot.
I don't care about rich people, I mostly just care about generational wealth.
I mean, those are kinda two sides of the same coin. Both ways to limit the compounding of wealth in few hands.
I'm open to all these ideas, and more
Wealth and income are two different things. We should tax wealth savagely, i.e., the ownership of assets, and we should also tax income, but to a lesser degree.
Just to level set: income refers to the flow of money earned over a period, like a salary or wages, while wealth represents the accumulated assets minus liabilities at a specific point in time
So that 18-year-old that loses both his parents will inherent nothing? So he would have to live on the street or something? Or that women who lose their husband, so inheriting the other half of their combined income? Which will cause her to lose the house etc?
Inheriting a couple 100k or even a mill isn't really the issue. Do tax it, yes, but 100% tax on anything is unreasonable, or at least if that happens at once. That's why we have multiple different taxes.
The cap wouldn't be zero, it would probably be in the low millions. If your parents were wealthy, you'd have a head start, but you would still need to work. There could be a separate exclusion for spouses, where maybe they keep half of the wealth or something as a one-time transfer (i.e. if they get remarried, that wealth wouldn't transfer to the new spouse).
As part of this, I also want to rework corporations and trusts. Basically, the only legal entity that gets special tax treatment are corporations with low valuation, once you go public or report net income or revenue over some amount, the legal protections go away. So mom and pop shops would get bankruptcy protection and whatnot, but large corporations wouldn't.
But all of that overcomplicates what I wanted to communicate, which is that generational wealth shouldn't be a thing. Property should be community owned and exclusivity agreements should be temporary (i.e. real estate should be owned until death).
You still wouldn't want to do any taxation at 100%, make it 70 or 80% sure, but 100% is just bullshit and 70-80% will be enough. The way to get people to accept higher taxes is to explain it to hem. People will also do everything in their power to not pay that 100% tax, including just stopping their Dang business for that year if corporate income would be taxed at 100%
The spousal thing is generally solved in the world by giving an exception, in NL it's like the first 800k is tax-free when your legal spouse dies.
Money inside companies is just money that will be taxed at a later date, the issue is that billionaires in the US put their stocks up as collateral taking out loans. It would be taxed again if they dividend it out or pay themselves somewhat of a wage.
The issue with companies is that evaluating them is something that you just cannot easily do every year for the tax report, unless you just go look at the equity = company value. We do have some designation for small, median and large companies based on revenue, balance total and FTE count, well at least in NL it is based on those 3.
Small companies need some tax breaks and larger companies don't, but a lot of companies are split up to multiple different companies to be able to benefit from tax breaks.
Owning a single property is not the issue, every family should be able to own one. It's the fact that people own multiple properties. You want to make it so it is not a good financial decision to own multiple properties, either you as a business or you as a person.
Just increase the inheritance tax for everything after a mil or so. It's still a couple taxation, but hey
The idea is rooted in the same ideas that Georgism is based on, which is the idea that people should own the value they create themselves, whereas things like property should be communally owned. Inheritance money isn't created value, so I think there's a good argument that it should be capped, and any excess should go to the people..
I don't believe in inheritance tax to fund the government though, it should merely be redistributed either as cash or donations to unaffiliated charities. The only tax used to fund governments should be land value taxes.
100% inheritence tax will go to the government though.
Still it's basically stealing from families anyway.
I'm saying it shouldn't, it should instead be distributed to the people. It should be used for something like UBI.
Which goes through the government.
Again if you want more income for those at the bottom you want efficient tax methods and 100% is not an efficient tax method since people will do EVERYTHING they can to avoid it. If people can accept a tax rate, they will pay it. Well a lot more people will pay it.
Yes, it goes through the government and is technically a tax, my point is that it's not funding the government.
The point isn't to be an effective way to redistribute money, the point is to ensure the winners earned it as much as possible. When someone "succeeds" entirely because of their parents' wealth, we run into the same issues as we had under kings where those at the top feel like they "deserve" to be there without actually earning it. If rich people decide to donate it all to causes they support instead of having it be redistributed, that's totally fine, because the point isn't to help the poor, it's to prevent generational wealth from determining winners and losers.
Like I said, 100% tax is just stealing.
It's not an issue to actually tax the rich, but the first x schould be tax free and after that a bracket should be low tax until y and then you can charge z percentage above that, but it cannot be 100% tax.
Sure, if you recognize generational wealth as being legitimate, taking that away is stealing.
I'm arguing that you only own the value you create. Inheriting wealth doesn't create value, so it's not really yours. I do think there's a legitimate argument for taking care of your family after you die, hence why I believe in some amount of exclusion for gifts (say in the million to tens of millions), because there are absolutely cases where it's necessary (i.e. if you have a special needs child or something) and that's not really the government's business. However, I do think the excess should be returned back to society, either through charitable donations or a direct redistribution.
Here's how I see it happening:
I don't see permanent ownership of real property as being legitimate, and I don't think inheritances are legitimate, because that promotes dynasties. The average person will be well below the gift tax exemption, so children of wealthy parents will absolutely have a step up over other people, but they won't automatically be filthy rich.
You don't need to gift away millions of euro's let's be honest.
Like I explained to you, if you want taxes to be effective they have to be based on something and be kinda fair. If you inheritence tax is 100% that means that every euro is taxed for a lot more than 100%.
Gifts just before deaths are often considered to be inheritance as well in some tax systems like NL fyi.
Basically how it works in NL currently:
There is also a special occasion when one of the parents die, then the remaining parent is in debt to the children until they die.
And exception for anything more than 1m euro is absolute bullshit. 140-150k is more than enough for most. Again taxing anything for 100% is stealing, you can do 60-70% though.
Most rich people don't deal with a lot of inheritence tax anyway. Most of the companies and very expensive assets will be passed down before they die. This will become even more if a 100% tax is introduced.
I don't sign up for the extreme taxation people like you want to introduce, because it will give people more incentive to do everything to not pay it. it will also get people to push more against the system. I have seen it time and time again with different taxes, considering I work at an accounting firm.
Instead we should have a good system of social security which means everybody has a basis income which should allow them to properly survive and thrive a bit. You will still have some people struggling one way or another with something like a universal basic income, but there is basically no way of stopping it but it will be vastly reduced.
Edit: there are a ton of ways of passing on wealth from one generation to another and with absurd levels of wealth is basically always goes in the form of passing companies down and there will always be at least one country where this is possible in a way you pay very little to no tax over it. Even if you keep it in the same countries you can often easily pass the company down, especially if the person who is inheriting it is working in that company. Why would not be actual value that somebody is allowed to inherited There is a real issue with that people keep pushing their taxes forward. Like Musk being able to take loans with their stocks as collateral instead of dividing money out, paying taxes over that and using that. There are ton more of examples like that, that are a way bigger issue.
Sure, if you start with the assumption that things like property and wealth can truly be owned. I personally think 60-70% tax is stealing under that assumption, and that inheritance (and gifts) should be treated like any other income.
But I'm starting from a different assumption that property is leased from society generally, and you only really own the value you create personally. When you die, there is no longer any legitimate owner so it must be redistributed.
I believe everyone should have equal opportunity to succeed, and that doesn't work if kids can just ride their parents' coattails. There will always be some of that with parents using their connections to help their kids get ahead, but inheriting a fortune completely kills any need to actually compete to succeed.
If we want a meritocratic society, we need to kill as much nepotism as we can. This article makes similar claims but from a little different perspective.
Agreed, but without the "thrive" bit. I think we need something like universal basic income to ensure everyone is above the poverty line, but that should be the extent of it. Along with this, I think we should eliminate the minimum wage and let the market decide what's fair.
However, this is completely separate from inheritance. I don't think the government should use that money for any purpose, it should strictly be redistributed if the person who died didn't choose any charities or whatever to donate to. The government should also give it to any survivors first if there's no will, up to the limit.
I don't see it as a tax because the government isn't taking that money, it's merely facilitating redistribution.
Passing down shares would be subject to the same inheritance rules.
100% taxing anything is just an unrealistic goal and not even needed. Going to 70-80% on income tax is enough. .Well that and fix the loan structure countries like the US has, make them unable to use stocks for colleteral for -loans. Musks wants another loan? Make him increase his salary or dividend it out and tax that with 70-80%.
If something is taxed