Comment on "Yeah, but what if we used AI?"
qwerty@discuss.tchncs.de 5 months agoThen they would have to count on external investment or aid or collect money over a longer period. That is no different than the current system, richer countries, states, neighborhoods have better infrastructure. The difference is that the collected money stays in the community and goes towards what the community wants and needs instead of what the politicians think it needs and filling their pockets in the process.
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 months ago
What if no one wants to invest in them or aid them? What if they can’t collect money in enough time before the bridge collapses?
Because, again, this sounds like ‘fuck the poor.’
qwerty@discuss.tchncs.de 5 months ago
What if the political class is corrupt and uses the tax money and their possition of power to fill up their own pockets, bailout banks and corporations owned by their billionaire friends and family members making them invulnerable to competition ensuring they’ll control the market, oppress the population to the point that it has no capacity to resist and even if it did it wouldn’t have the time nor strength to do so after working all day just to stay alive? What if the corporations collude with the politicians to introduce loop holes into tax law so that they don’t have to pay them and if they can’t do that they’ll just trickle-down the cost onto the workers and consumers by increasing prices or lowering wages?
You can’t dismiss a system based on theoretical “what if” edge cases, especially in the face of common everyday reality that we’re all living.
The world isn’t perfect and we can’t afford to act like it is. What we can do is try things out, see what the result is and act accordingly. If you tried to bring down a tree by punching it and it broke your hand you wouldn’t just punch it harder next time, you’d try something else. The same goes for the tax system, no matter how much money we’ll shovel into it, it won’t fix the underlying issue. It doesn’t have to be perfect, nothing is, and dismissing anything short of it won’t get us anywhere.
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Sorry, you can’t dismiss a theoretical system with a theoretical what if? Why exactly?
qwerty@discuss.tchncs.de 5 months ago
Because you can always make up a theoretical “what if” edge case and the counter argument to it is a real world “this is happening right now” endemic.
I’d also appreciate if you’d post an answare to my entire argument instead of picking a single point and answering it with a question, otherwise this discussion won’t be very productive.
aidan@lemmy.world 5 months ago
How is that any different from the current system. Just instead of relying on people voluntarily helping them, they’re relying on beuracrats
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Poorly implemented taxation does not mean taxation as a concept is bad.
aidan@lemmy.world 5 months ago
I didn’t say it did.