= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eliezer_Yudkowsky comments on The Robots, AI, and Unemployment Anti-FAQ - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (267)
The problem isn't just all those other taxes but phasing-out of benefits - this is what leads to the calculations and observations by which somebody making $25,000/year isn't much better off than someone getting $8,000/year.
ADDED: Also, any paperwork can easily be an extreme barrier to that IQ 70 kid that Gwern was talking about.
It's an extreme barrier (in the sense of an ugh-field) even for smart would-be employers.
I'm kind of worried that 20 people upvoted that any paperwork is an extreme barrier to smart employers--presumably people like themselves?
What kind of opportunities have you all been passing up for want of avoiding a form?
And what kind of opportunities are present to eliminate or stream-line such (ie, turbo-tax)?
I'm not very well informed on this topic, but isn't something like that always going to be the case in a society with a safety net? e.g., if we make sure everyone has at least $25k to live on, anyone making $8k a year isn't going to be any worse off than someone making $25k.
Of course I'm not sure how well America's arcane maze of benefits, tax deductions and whatnot fit into this simple abstraction.
Safety net should be a slope, not a cliff. Earning your first dollar shouldn't mean you get $1 less in benefits - there's actually a good argument for subsidizing the first $X of income - which is what the EITC is. Basically negative income tax.