AI Develops Efficient and Very Interesting Tax Policies

The AI applied the highest tax rates to rich and poor and the lowest to middle-income workers. The impact on the economy led to a smaller gap between rich and poor.

It actually make sense to me but AI is not taking into account civil unrest of the poor and their voting power. It also does not address greed where the wealthy can lobby for beneficial tax laws that allow them to pay much less.

If both however could be eliminated from influencing the tax laws, the economic engine HP of the middle would increase. This leads to more commerce, more jobs, more upward mobility and would stop the wealthy from getting richer and richer.

Here is a link to the study. It's still in the early stages. I doubt this could ever be implemented but it's fascinating. Want more economic equality; AI says tax the hell out of the poor LOL!!!!

www.technologyreview.com...

a reply to: Stupidsecrets

How about we just _all_ stop paying taxes? LOL. Give the government every penny you think they're worth!!

originally posted by: Stupidsecrets
The AI applied the highest tax rates to rich and poor and the lowest to middle-income workers. The impact on the economy led to a smaller gap between rich and poor.

It actually make sense to me but AI is not taking into account civil unrest of the poor and their voting power. It also does not address greed where the wealthy can lobby for beneficial tax laws that allow them to pay much less.

If both however could be eliminated from influencing the tax laws, the economic engine HP of the middle would increase. This leads to more commerce, more jobs, more upward mobility and would stop the wealthy from getting richer and richer.

Here is a link to the study. It's still in the early stages. I doubt this could ever be implemented but it's fascinating. Want more economic equality; AI says tax the hell out of the poor LOL!!!!

www.technologyreview.com...

A couple of thoughts:

The middle class is the most productive, so it makes sense to tax them less. You don't want to over burden your bread and butter so to speak.

Taxing the poor more actually makes sense when you factor in human behavior and incentives. People should never be comfortable being poor as it prevents them from making productive decisions to get out of poverty.

Taxing the wealthy a lot doesn't actually help anyone imho. It makes the wealthier poorer, but there is zero evidence it helps the poor and middle class. Frankly, I'd prefer incentives to ensure the uber wealthy (I'm talking people worth $25 million+ types) are donating money to charities instead of pissing the money away back to the government.

Taxing the mega wealthy a lot more, it would take a lot to convince me if that is really a solution. If the taxes were applied to the right lanes it could work. Medical costs for the poor might be a good one. A very low interest rate CC for the poor could also work but it could never be forgiven just like student loans. Give the poor a good shot at getting out of poverty basically much better than they have now and give them a purpose, not just a handout.

The study though says there are so many variables, the AI had no visibility on those variables. It just called it removing them.
Very weak but I could see with adding more variables, the AI could probably come up with a strong tax plan. Better than any government.

a reply to: Stupidsecrets

The government already gets plenty of tax money.
They need to be more efficient and figure out how to cut spending.

a reply to: Stupidsecrets

Who uses the most? I don't know that the poor should be highly taxed, but they should have skin in the game. Presently they're by far and away the largest users of tax funded programs while paying absolutely nothing into those systems AND while being permitted to vote for politicians who will give them even more. That's upside down, IMO... the people who are of the least benefit to society (and in most cases are a negative benefit to society) shouldn't have one ounce of voting power nor should they receive anything from those of us who are productive and actually generate measurable benefits to society.

One of the reasons I liked Herman Cain was that he used the metaphor of our economy as a train. The engine is powered by the capitalism producing goods and services. The cars on the train are all freight cars. And every tax was a load in one of the cars. The load might be a good thing, and for a good purpose, but the more baggage you pile on the train, the more you are going to slow down the train. Congress's job is to figure out how much baggage we want on the train, and how to throw everything else overboard.

Every government program may be well intentioned, and even achieve making life better for Americans. But it's all just weight on the rails.

It's tough because if the poor is not appeased they could rise up and harm society, even destroy it. Appease them too much though and the middle class stop defending the castle so to speak which was a contributing factor to the fall of Rome. They pandered to the poor on the backs of the middle class and military class. Eventually there were not enough people left who cared about defending it. That wasn't the only reason why but it was one of them. An AI doesn't have the ability to gauge something on that scale yet.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Stupidsecrets

Who uses the most? I don't know that the poor should be highly taxed, but they should have skin in the game. Presently they're by far and away the largest users of tax funded programs while paying absolutely nothing into those systems AND while being permitted to vote for politicians who will give them even more. That's upside down, IMO... the people who are of the least benefit to society (and in most cases are a negative benefit to society) shouldn't have one ounce of voting power nor should they receive anything from those of us who are productive and actually generate measurable benefits to society.

Lets save ourselves by taxing those who don't have any money. What a great plan!

The economy doesn't run without the poor in low paying jobs. That's why you have to have lots of poor, so they are easily replaceable. Big biz could care less if they have to suck the Gov boob to get by.

I would love to see AI figuring out the most efficient way to spend the tax money and get the most out of it for the benefit of the country. Then remove most of government useless bureaucrats who never do anything good anyway.
I can bet there never be a need to raise taxes again.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Stupidsecrets

Who uses the most? I don't know that the poor should be highly taxed, but they should have skin in the game. Presently they're by far and away the largest users of tax funded programs while paying absolutely nothing into those systems AND while being permitted to vote for politicians who will give them even more. That's upside down, IMO... the people who are of the least benefit to society (and in most cases are a negative benefit to society) shouldn't have one ounce of voting power nor should they receive anything from those of us who are productive and actually generate measurable benefits to society.

This is one of the dirty little secrets. The poor cost society a lot of money. Police services, school services, hospital services, etc all are disproportionately used by the poor and they pay little to nothing in support of those services by way of taxes.

I think EVERYONE should have to pay taxes. I don't care how poor or rich. Everyone needs skin in the game and needs to share in the burden. I also think our politicians need to be held accountable by requiring a balanced budget and any tax increase, has to be offset with the elimination of a tax somewhere else. Not only that, all taxes need a sunset clauses of say 5 to 10 years and should require a vote for continuation.

I also want taxes as simple as possible. Just one or two rates low rates with no deductions or credits of any kind. Eliminate all subsidies. This is to prevent politicians from using the tax code to dole out favors to different lobbying groups / industries.

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Stupidsecrets

Who uses the most? I don't know that the poor should be highly taxed, but they should have skin in the game. Presently they're by far and away the largest users of tax funded programs while paying absolutely nothing into those systems AND while being permitted to vote for politicians who will give them even more. That's upside down, IMO... the people who are of the least benefit to society (and in most cases are a negative benefit to society) shouldn't have one ounce of voting power nor should they receive anything from those of us who are productive and actually generate measurable benefits to society.

Lets save ourselves by taxing those who don't have any money. What a great plan!

The economy doesn't run without the poor in low paying jobs. That's why you have to have lots of poor, so they are easily replaceable. Big biz could care less if they have to suck the Gov boob to get by.

Simple solution: better yourself and find a higher paying profession. Necessity is the mother of invention and in the present system we've removed much of the necessity that historically drove the poor to pull themselves out of poverty. Besides that, what I'm suggesting is more a removal of society funded "benefits" of poverty than a full blown taxation of the poor.

That said, I am a proponent of a flat tax across the board. If I'm forced to pay $0.20 of every dollar a make in taxes, then that should apply to people who make $1,000 a year same as those who make $100,000,000 a year... it's called equality and fairness. It also points out the obvious: everyone should be self-responsible or they present more of a liability than a benefit to us all.

a reply to: Edumakated

You get it.

originally posted by: Edumakated

Taxing the poor more actually makes sense when you factor in human behavior and incentives. People should never be comfortable being poor as it prevents them from making productive decisions to get out of poverty.

The result is supposed to be something fair though, and that doesn't seem particularly fair to me. I would argue that their definition of "fairness" isn't really based on a valid premise. They assume that less inequality is automatically equivalent to a fairer system, but I doubt anyone would enjoy living in a system where everyone is equally poor. A large number of people got very rich during the dotcom boom, on paper that equates to a higher level of inequality but all that really happened was some lower class people moved into a higher class. This is also why it's quite ignorant to have a blind hatred for rich people, because having a lot of rich people is actually a good thing and indicates an economy is producing a lot of wealthy people. Many poor nations have much lower inequality than the most developed nations, but their poorest people are much poorer than the developed nations. So the gap between the rich and poor isn't really an important factor, it's the average standard of living and the standard of the lowest class.

I've actually wanted to create an algorithm similar to this for a few years now but never got around to it, but I actually wanted to test different forms of government altogether to see if socialism would really work better than free market capitalism and other types of systems. The problem is it requires an extremely complicated algorithm to simulate how our economy functions. Reading this article it sounds to me like the simulation is still very simplistic, it's basically a small number of agents using very basic trading mechanics similar to something you might find in a MMO economy, but even simpler than that by the sounds of it. It also doesn't really seem to incorporate any complex aspects of economics such as how money is created with the use of bonds and used for loans via fractional reserve banking. It also doesn't seem to simulate any governmental systems besides tax laws, so I would say any conclusions this AI reaches are probably going to be unlikely to work in reality. It's definitely a very interesting idea though and has given me some motivation to attempt writing my own algorithm.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

There is only so much fairness and no matter the system, there will always be someone who doesn't think something is fair. We all learned when we were five years old... Life isn't fair.

I don't think poor people should be unduly burdened with taxes, but I do believe they should be paying something. Everyone needs skin in the game. When you don't have to pay for the consequences of your voting / political choices, it makes it easier for politicians to pander to you as a group.

We don't need more taxes, we need less spending. The problem is no politicians wants to be the one to say no to a large group of voters.

a reply to: Edumakated

There is only so much fairness and no matter the system, there will always be someone who doesn't think something is fair.

That was basically the point I was making about inequality. We see it as a "bad" thing if other people have a lot more wealth than we do, which is a position fundamentally based on jealousy. The wealthiest nations on Earth have the highest amount of inequality because they have very rich individuals, but they also have the wealthiest lower class populations on Earth, yet they still view inequality as an inherently unfair thing. As you said it will always be seen as unfair when some people have more than others, but there is no realistic system where everyone is equally rich, there is however a realistically achievable system where everyone is equally poor. The only logical option is to accept that there will always be different classes of wealth because it's just a natural result of trade and economics, supply and demand, varied skillets with varied levels of expertise required, etc. The best we can do is ensure the average standard of living is high and that the lowest classes also have a reasonable standard of living.

I don't think poor people should be unduly burdened with taxes, but I do believe they should be paying something. Everyone needs skin in the game.

I'm not disagreeing with this statement, at least not in theory, but in practice it's another story getting money out of people who can barely afford living expenses. The money you do get is going to be insignificant compared to the tax revenue generated from higher income groups, and that's basically what we see in the real world. A very tiny tax increase on the rich would generate the same amount as a massive increase for the poor. I do think they should have some "skin in the game" as it were, but anything you take from them is most likely just going back to them anyway. The real motive should be to minimize the size of the poorest class by minimizing unemployment and raising the average income as much as possible, but not by forcing businesses to pay people more because that also has negative side effects if taken too far. All these things such as minimum wage rules would need to be included in any simulation attempting to produce realistic conclusions.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Never thought of it...but youre right. Public assistance should be an impediment to having a voice.

It accomplishes a similar goal to the founders desire to only let landowners vote...only productive humans should be allowed to steer the ship. And eliminates the issue of consolidating power into a ruling class by dropping it directly onto the working class. I fully support this.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Never thought of it...but youre right. Public assistance should be an impediment to having a voice.

It accomplishes a similar goal to the founders desire to only let landowners vote...only productive humans should be allowed to steer the ship. And eliminates the issue of consolidating power into a ruling class by dropping it directly onto the working class. I fully support this.

I've advocated for it as well. Those on public assistance (AKA welfare) should not be allowed to vote. In addition, I also think we should be required to pass a basic test on our constitution / country to vote. I support giving the same exact test we give to immigrants seeking to become a US citizen.

People who cannot name the three branches of government or have even rudimentary understanding of our constitution / founding principals, etc should not be voting.

The fact we allow everyone to vote is why we have people who are certifiable idiots able to making a living as a career politician.

a reply to: Edumakated

The problem with deciding who gets to vote based on how much they contribute to the system is that you're beginning to determine voting power based on how wealthy a person is, and by that logic the people who pay the most taxes should have the most voting power. That idea seems sensible on its surface, the people who pay the most should have more say in how it's used, but once again it's not such a great idea in practice because we don't want billionaires determining laws and regulations or what the government uses their tax money for, they already have lobbyists for that anyway.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

I'm not disagreeing with this statement, at least not in theory, but in practice it's another story getting money out of people who can barely afford living expenses. The money you do get is going to be insignificant compared to the tax revenue generated from higher income groups, and that's basically what we see in the real world.

It isn't about how much money is raised. It is ensuring they understand whatever they are advocating cost EVERYONE money. It is easy to vote for sh*t when you don't have to pay for it. The point is that they need to understand it cost money and no one gets a free ride.

I don't care if some guy is only paying $100/yr in taxes. If his tax bill goes up to $101 he needs to see it and understand why.

The problem now is the middle class gets burdened with everything. Those hurt the worst are the upper class, the top 1% - top 5% of wage earners.

The poor don't get taxed.

The uber wealth (people worth tens of millions up to the billionaires) don't care about tax policy by in large as they it doesn't affect their lives. They are independently wealthy. They usually don't have "wages" and more money than they'd ever spend.

People hurt are folks like me. My household income is typically just in the 1%. We make good money, but hardly rich. Certainly not independentl wealthy with FU money. It hurts your doctors, lawyers, corporate middle managers. People making say $300 - $750k / yr in income.

We make enough so that the middle class thinks you are rich, but you have absolutely nothing in common with real rich folks. Politicians are adept at saying "tax the billionaires" and then writing tax policy that considers anyone making $250k a "billionaire"