alt Hacker NewsCorrect, building an AI is an asset, which can then be rented to other businesses.
However the thread revolves around employers replacing employees with AI. Given that the number of AI creators is minimal, and the number of companies replacing employees is large, it follows that most companies replacing employees are renting AI, they did not create it.
Hence, for those companies, AI is not an asset, it is an expense.
One way of taxing those companies would be to tax AI producers based on revenue, not profits. If 50% of revenue was tax, then, the costs of AI to the end-user would go up to cover that. So revenue would "double", but half would go to govt.
I am not a tax lawyer though, but I expect such a scheme is so radically different to the current tax regime, that is has precisely zero chance of being implemented like this.
Replies
> One way of taxing those companies would be to tax AI producers based on revenue, not profits.
Why?
Of course businesses have always leased equipment to reduce the need for labor. This isn’t materially any different than paying your neighbor to borrow his ox and plow so you only need one guy to work your field instead of three.