More likely than not, if San Francisco goes through with it, they'll just take the money to shore up the general tax base, enrich civil workers, or maybe a bit of pork for donors and the elite.
So you're saying we shouldn't tax robots because the people who the citizens of San Francisco elected cannot be trusted to spend the money wisely.
Um, no. Traffic jams are caused by too many cars on the road at the same time, not too many people. If all those people were in buses, the roads would be almost empty.
And it isn't population density that puts all those cars on the road, it's parking space density, which is pretty much the opposite of population density. Most cars on the road at any given time are traveling from one parking space to another, so the way to get rid of cars is the same as the way to get rid of pigeons: eliminate places for them to roost.
Another nice thing about trains, besides not wasting time getting to altitude and besides being 3-5x as energy efficient as airplanes (if it's an electric train) and besides not making you stand in line to get groped and besides allowing to use your laptop and cell phone the whole trip, is that you can build a train station right in the middle of downtown where there's good transit and where a lot of travelers want to be anyway.
Because everyone going home after work would... what... exactly? Not go home after work?
That's one alternative to (1) commuting (versus telecommuting), (2) during rush hour, (3) in a car, (4) solo, (5) on that congested freeway, when you (6) work at one end of that traffic jam, and (7) live at the other end of it.
As you can guess from my numbered hints above, there are many other alternatives.
The solution is to ask why is traffic so bad in the first place.
Because people tolerate that traffic enough to create it and sit in it at the same time. Because sitting in traffic is more desirable than the alternatives available to them.
Google Maps says Westwood to LAX takes over an hour during rush hour, or 18 minutes when traffic is light. So all they have to do is charge a variable congestion toll on the 405. If the price is set correctly, this would permanently eliminate traffic congestion on the 405 without overcharging anyone, and as a bonus it would replace taxes as a revenue source for maintenance or even, if people want it, to build the tunnel.
Lower taxes and congestion-free travel at the cost of a toll. That's two benefits for the price of one, and who doesn't like 2-for-1 deals?
We can't do what climate science did in the 1960s and 1970s, and predict imminent doom-and-gloom scenarios for the 1980s that don't come to pass, and haven't come to pass even 30 years after that.
Which respected scientists predicted those scenarios?
Taxing wealth directly makes it much harder for people to actually build wealth over time...
But won't your take-home pay be greater when you no longer have to pay income taxes?
Those with the most wealth benefit the most from national defense to protect their wealth. Is it fair that those people should be subsidized by the poor?
If national defense were constitutionally required to be funded entirely with wealth taxes, would the rich and powerful support invading other countries, or would they insert pacifists into the government at every opportunity in order to neutralize the political influence of private military companies and arms manufacturers?
Damn those tyrants in California for believing their vote should count the same as the vote of any other American.
Virginia was able to procure two additional seats in the Senate, thereby increasing their electoral count by two, way back in 1863. What's stopping California from following their lead?
Or maybe California prefers things the way they are.
by implying that the software isn't perfect. So the biggest fans will be the first and most vocal opponents of your suggestion. It's tragic when the product's greatest supporters are also its greatest impediment to improvement, but that's just human nature, unfortunately.
and not just some small affordable rental income property in the suburbs... it pretty much has to be "downtown" to be much of a draw to airbnb guests...
Oh good, then people renting suburban homes are practically immune to being evicted by owners who want to turn them into Airbnb rentals.
If you want to stop being taxed then explain to me how you plan to fund roads...
For limited-access roads, tolls are the most appropriate funding mechanism, being less regressive than gas or sales taxes, and variable express tolls can permanently eliminate traffic congestion, saving us all a LOT of money on infrastructure.
City streets, because they directly benefit the property owner, should be funded by street frontage fees.
bridges
Tolls again.
education
Because education is the great equalizer, it should be funded by progressive income taxes.
police
Income taxes again.
firemen
Fire insurance, in the same way your health insurance pays the paramedics.
defense
Because national defense disproportionately benefits those with land and property, it should be funded by property taxes.
medical care
Today it's funded with health insurance.
So I agree with you that we cannot completely escape taxes and still maintain civilization, but I also agree that we are being overtaxed.
It's a completely subjective unit of "goodness" or "I-like-it-ness" whose ratings tend to cluster around 1 or 10 (or 5 on a 5-star scale) making it a very polarizing way of rating things.
But if you asked people to rate each movie relative to another movie, they would have to think a little more and so voting brigades could not simply assign "1 star" or "10 stars" to movies.
Then you could use a Condorcet method or similar to rank all movies in order from least to most liked, and assign each movie an "all movies" percentile ranking and also one or more category-specific percentile rankings. This would flatten the ends of the ratings histogram and boost the middle where more movies should have been in the first place.
Yes, it was a good thing in the same way that racial profiling by the police is a good thing because it gets criminals off the streets. Right? Or is there some value in equal enforcement?
Slashdot Mirror
So you're saying we shouldn't tax robots because the people who the citizens of San Francisco elected cannot be trusted to spend the money wisely.
Why can't variable market rate pricing solve the problem?
Um, no. Traffic jams are caused by too many cars on the road at the same time, not too many people. If all those people were in buses, the roads would be almost empty.
And it isn't population density that puts all those cars on the road, it's parking space density, which is pretty much the opposite of population density. Most cars on the road at any given time are traveling from one parking space to another, so the way to get rid of cars is the same as the way to get rid of pigeons: eliminate places for them to roost.
That would be really good for the environment. What's the downside?
What would upper management do if nobody can afford to commute to work at the current wage? Clean the toilets themselves?
Why do you need to take 200lbs of tools home every night?
And sometimes jetliners are slower than bicycles.
Another nice thing about trains, besides not wasting time getting to altitude and besides being 3-5x as energy efficient as airplanes (if it's an electric train) and besides not making you stand in line to get groped and besides allowing to use your laptop and cell phone the whole trip, is that you can build a train station right in the middle of downtown where there's good transit and where a lot of travelers want to be anyway.
Actually, the poor like tolls more than those who would actually pay them: The survey found that support for tolls was higher among low-income individuals (58 percent support for tolls) than among high-income individuals (42 percent support for tolls).
That's one alternative to (1) commuting (versus telecommuting), (2) during rush hour, (3) in a car, (4) solo, (5) on that congested freeway, when you (6) work at one end of that traffic jam, and (7) live at the other end of it.
As you can guess from my numbered hints above, there are many other alternatives.
Because people tolerate that traffic enough to create it and sit in it at the same time. Because sitting in traffic is more desirable than the alternatives available to them.
Because traffic congestion is a sign of prosperity, and so the only thing worse than having congestion is not having congestion.
Google Maps says Westwood to LAX takes over an hour during rush hour, or 18 minutes when traffic is light. So all they have to do is charge a variable congestion toll on the 405. If the price is set correctly, this would permanently eliminate traffic congestion on the 405 without overcharging anyone, and as a bonus it would replace taxes as a revenue source for maintenance or even, if people want it, to build the tunnel.
Lower taxes and congestion-free travel at the cost of a toll. That's two benefits for the price of one, and who doesn't like 2-for-1 deals?
Which respected scientists predicted those scenarios?
It's obvious they aren't because the Earth is only 6,000 years old.
If I were wealthy and wanted the poor to subsidize the protection of my wealth, I might say exactly the same thing!
But won't your take-home pay be greater when you no longer have to pay income taxes?
Those with the most wealth benefit the most from national defense to protect their wealth. Is it fair that those people should be subsidized by the poor?
If national defense were constitutionally required to be funded entirely with wealth taxes, would the rich and powerful support invading other countries, or would they insert pacifists into the government at every opportunity in order to neutralize the political influence of private military companies and arms manufacturers?
Yes, that would be awesome!
Virginia was able to procure two additional seats in the Senate, thereby increasing their electoral count by two, way back in 1863. What's stopping California from following their lead?
Or maybe California prefers things the way they are.
by implying that the software isn't perfect. So the biggest fans will be the first and most vocal opponents of your suggestion. It's tragic when the product's greatest supporters are also its greatest impediment to improvement, but that's just human nature, unfortunately.
Oh good, then people renting suburban homes are practically immune to being evicted by owners who want to turn them into Airbnb rentals.
Yes, "I can't afford to invest in my future" is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Why can't the middle class also buy up condos/homes and put them on AirBNB?
For limited-access roads, tolls are the most appropriate funding mechanism, being less regressive than gas or sales taxes, and variable express tolls can permanently eliminate traffic congestion, saving us all a LOT of money on infrastructure.
City streets, because they directly benefit the property owner, should be funded by street frontage fees.
Tolls again.
Because education is the great equalizer, it should be funded by progressive income taxes.
Income taxes again.
Fire insurance, in the same way your health insurance pays the paramedics.
Because national defense disproportionately benefits those with land and property, it should be funded by property taxes.
Today it's funded with health insurance.
So I agree with you that we cannot completely escape taxes and still maintain civilization, but I also agree that we are being overtaxed.
It's a completely subjective unit of "goodness" or "I-like-it-ness" whose ratings tend to cluster around 1 or 10 (or 5 on a 5-star scale) making it a very polarizing way of rating things.
But if you asked people to rate each movie relative to another movie, they would have to think a little more and so voting brigades could not simply assign "1 star" or "10 stars" to movies.
Then you could use a Condorcet method or similar to rank all movies in order from least to most liked, and assign each movie an "all movies" percentile ranking and also one or more category-specific percentile rankings. This would flatten the ends of the ratings histogram and boost the middle where more movies should have been in the first place.
San Francisco's electric trolleybuses can run all day and all night without stopping to recharge.
Yes, it was a good thing in the same way that racial profiling by the police is a good thing because it gets criminals off the streets. Right? Or is there some value in equal enforcement?