> except for discrimination against white men
Well, obviously you're familiar with it.
> except for discrimination against white men
Well, obviously you're familiar with it.
It's not conversion because the original owner is using the right they retained despite the sale.
No..... The original owner's App linked to the device is a Technical means of access, not a legal right to the property.
It's not like having an undisclosed Easement or Lease against the property, Because easements are actual contracts that Legally encumber
property owner's rights.
I mentioned the example: It's more like handing over the keys to a house after the closing papers are signed, But forgetting or failing to mention that there may be 7 other copies of the keys you handed over, some in your possession, some in your friends' or neighbors possession.
You don't commit a crime by failing to disclose this, BUT If anybody abuses their copy of the key to gain entrance into the house, then
they probably commit the crime of trespassing.
If you complete the sale of your car, the new owner is legally entitled to do Anything with the car after the transfer of ownership, Including have the computer memory reset to factory, or clip off all the antennas to block the remote control features.
Are the previous owners not breaking the law by retaining such control?
Probably not merely by still having the control. The new owner has a certain level of responsibility to ensure that possession and
control are fully transferred to themself, or raise the dispute within a reasonable time period.
For example: If you sell your house,
and happen to still have a copy of the key..... that's not illegal in itself, The generally expected thing to do is for the new homeowner to rekey their locks,
though, Because the previous owner is not really responsible for All the other people, neighbors, etc, they might have shared the key with ---- An oblivious Friend/neighbor unaware of the sale could come into the house with an unknown key 6 months later and not have committed any crime.
It will be illegal if After you sell your house, you come back later knowing that it is no longer your property, and use a copy of the key you kept stashed in order to
enter the building without Permission from the new owner.
Similarly it will be illegal if the previous owner of the car uses their App still linked to locate your car and gain access to it,
or send other commands to the car without the permission of the new Property owner to do those things.
Merely having the app as a file somewhere on their phone is not conversion though.
It's not conversion or break-in/theft until they intentionally take an action unauthorized by the new owner regarding the asset.
No... it doesn't mean the sales have to go through the dealership.
It does mean that the Dealership gets to charge Tax/Service fee to correct the Links apps thing.
But there are other Reasons you might need to change authorized phones other than change of ownership for the car...
For example: Your Cell phone was stolen and you can't wipe the app off, Or you got a divorce, etc, etc.
Job One will be to identify and short to Ground all the GPS and wireless antennas -- except the one for the radio
Except this might interfere with servicing, when the Dealer requires wireless access to the vehicle for routine activities such as resetting warning lights, upgrading firmware to correct issues, or reading diagnostic codes.
Concern is that at some point, the dealers might make cars that literally stop working if they fail to check in to the dealership's systems for a long enough period of time to verify Software licenses, or something
My PACEMAKER IS A ROBOT. What should it or me be taxed?
Robots which provide only personal health or other benefits to a natural person owning or leasing use of the robot not taxed.
Dude, you can't even reasonably calculate the number of man-hours that have been lost to air-powered hammers when used to frame a stick-and-nail framed house.
Which is why I suggest finding a "Percentage of gross revenue which must be cost of Wages that withholding taxes will be due upon" for the purposes of deciding what the Automation tax will be. Instead of trying to directly count Man hours gained or lost.
Also, if Automation lowers prices, then revenues will go down. If more total work gets done by the business as a result of automation, then the tax will also become negligible, because the increase in revenue will be Offset by more work being required.
We will not see a 1-1 conversion of employee to robot. We never have.
What we see is the introduction of a software application, or of a machine, that requires humans to operate and maintain.
Right.... one bot can potentially replace hundreds of people.
There's nothing that says the task of operating and repairing machines cannot be automated, and the pace of technological development is very high lately.
machine allows the business to expand. But when the business expands, it does not need to hire more people, it can just make better use of the people it has.
That works for SMBs, But larger businesses conduct mass-layoffs which are catastrophic to the public, when their requirement for human workers decreases.
It is not because of Machines that business expands; business would expand as long as there is an increase in customers willing to pay the price the business can sell at. It's because of increased volume of demand from consumers, and business owners are incentivized to expand their businesses, because they will earn more money per quarter with a larger business.
The expansion of businesses is attributed to a number of things, But mostly Population growth.
If a Business does Not expand or increase number of employees, then Relative to the economy, and because of Inflation, that business is actually shrinking.
That isn't a trick to work around your proposal, that is how automation has been progressing for centuries.
It's not reasonable to expect automation of past centuries to show what automation in the future will look like.
Shall we apply your proposal to farmers who use tractors to let one worker do the work of 100? What about those same farmers using Excel to reduce a whole team of accountants down to just one? What about the huge trucks used to ship goods to shopping centers, eliminating whole teams of horse-and-carriage drivers?
A key difference is these developments were in isolation. The pace of further automations was very low, and only a small fraction of the economy was impacted at the time. That is not the case with new automations coming out in this decade, which will probably be able to cut most human jobs to near zero across all industries.
The public has already taken the negative Fallout that came with these automations, and we're now enjoying the benefits.
Around the time the tractor was being introduced, It maybe could have been a net public good To slow the pace at which farmers could be replaced, But the time to propose that Already arrived and passed a Long long time ago.
What about the huge trucks used to ship goods to shopping centers, eliminating whole teams of horse-and-carriage drivers?
Why don't you ask the Horses how they would feel about it. Because that is the role the Humans are going to be placed in now..... Not the role of the Drivers (Who could find other work), but the Role of the Horses.
The actual ramification coming is that Human work will be largely obsoleted, and Human hands will likely have their economic value reduced to 0, while 100% of the Cake gets re-assigned to people who own Real property and Raw materials which robots can do work on for basically free.
Instead, we should embrace the fact that we can automate our burdensome labor away, dive into that head first (as we are doing anyway), and figure out how to provide for the teeming masses of people who can't find work. This isn't a problem we can escape by slowing the adoption of labor automation
Why not slow it down, until our culture is ready to handle it, And people can figure out what to do with their lives, if they are no longer able to do Valuable work, and Not able to Improve the world, or Change the world, or make some small contribution to something of meaning, with their Mind or their Hands?
Essentially the future direction of automation appears to be that 99% of Humans will eventually get forced into retirement at a very young age, And they'll be destitute with the Robot managers and the Government owning all the money.
Robot workers and automation make the cake bigger. You should not use taxes as a mechanism to keep the cake small.
My proposition is this cannot be true. The cake is made bigger when companies invest in human labor and put in economic output an amount comparable to what they take in.
When companies decide to stop investing in human labor as much as possible and hire robots instead, In other words, maximize dollars that come in and don't leave as economic output, in the extreme case take in massive $$$ and spend No money to produce products worth (In terms of cost) a tiny fraction of what is paid, this means they have found a way to horde more of the cake, and there's no increase in the size of the cake associated with these actions.
What I suggest is essentially an Efficiency limit. a Minimum amount of money companies have to invest in labor capital, A ratio of required labor per Dollar of revenue emitted, Requiring companies to be economically productive, both in terms of the value of goods produced, and the value of services consumed, and not be able to just horde cake Or produce something from nothing.
Let's say I have a highly automated factory, and my competitor does not. If he introduces automation he gets to pay a massive tax that I don't - simply because I was earlier.
No.... That would not be fair. If your two factories are building the same kinds of products, your two operations will be assigned The same required ratio of Wage costs to business Revenue.
For example: Take 10 factories producing the same general category of consumable good.
If their average overall company labor cost across all employees was $Y for each $X of revenue attributable to that business, then take Y and divide it by X to reach the Required fraction. Average the required fraction over a representative sample of businesses in that industry for the years 2005 to 2010.
Then set that fraction as The required fraction of labor cost per Unit of revenue generated by every factory in that same industry.
So you see: It's not "measure automation for your individual companies"; It's Measure the average human labor cost of a Dollar of Revenue throughout your entire industry. And determine appropriate amounts based on measurement Over a period of time before rampant automation started to cause economic problems for workers.
Once the IRS Labor cost per Revenue tables are generated for this kind of factory, then it applies Equally to ALL businesses in the industry, Regardless of what level of automation they were at in 2010.
Where do you draw the line, precisely?
The great thing is you don't have to draw lines. Eventually you categorize all kinds of businesses based on category, and you set a required percentage of Money spent on Labor per Dollar of revenue, Based on what those ratios were before additional automation was introduced ----- Also, you can set a 100-year's schedule to allow 0.5 percent points more of savings per year by automating.
It doesn't matter what kind of automation you used to reduce your Labor costs.
The amount of revenue your business generates dictates how much labor would be required if you were not automating.
And it's that disparity, or that decrease in Labor cost per $$$ of revenue which can be reversed by taxing 90% of the savings.
Also, setting a minimum labor cost per dollar of revenue based on a business activity has another advantage........
It reduces the incentive for companies to try and abuse their workers, get more interns, try and sneak more unpaid overtime,
or try and Offshore work, misuse contractors, Engage in destructive mergers and mass-layoffs.
Reducing the work force for any reason, lowering the wage costs will then have major tax consequences, unless business revenue also goes down and stops growing at the same time.
The government should impute the wages that a human worker would be paid in 2010 with a Human cost-of-living adjustment based on the Robot's job description, For a given amount of Company revenue by industry.
Then Double the quantity
And compare the Wages the Company is currently paying every month to the Imputed Wages based on the greater of the Total number of robots Jobs, and based on the Company's total revenue and Industry.
Make the companies Pay standard Employee Taxes on the difference between the Imputed Sum and the Actually paid sum, Including what the Social security, Medicare, Income Tax, and Healthcare benefits would be; Require the company actually buy in Health insurance for the robots.
Then make the companies pay an Additional supplement to Income Tax witholding for the robots called the "Automation tax".
Basically, double the income tax rate for automated employees to 60%, after already having doubled the wage, And specify the "Minimum wage" for the lowest jobs for purposes of imputing automated job roles to $20/Hour.
By transferring them to the second company it relieves BB from the obligations of the (assumed) much larger BB severance package.
Transferring an employee out to a different company is a severance. Unless their contract with BB specifying the severance terms explicitly provided for it, then the obligation to pay likely came into play as soon as the employee transferred to the other company without their consent.
You're a moron for not just thinking that was the most likely possibility in the first place; that you were not familiar with the term. Hey, two reasons you're a moron.
They don't have a CEO. Chief, implying one person, is right there in the name. They have others who have taken on different parts of the job that a CEO does at other companies.
That's not having a (one) CEO.
You might have mail.