Sure, if someone dies of old age. A different story if one or both parents die from an accident leaving their possibly still you children to fend for themselves.
They never thought of giving a whole lot of assets to the children. But if they did and the child dies? Maybe a better system would be for corporations as profit machines to either be outlawed or boycotted, especially if they are providing an essential service and doing so very cheaply due to automation. Instead these could be run at no profit, with the money made going into funding a living wage, or making their products very cheap. Of course too cheap might bring wastefulness, so maybe simply ensure that the money made goes back to the people who can't work in that job (fund living wage) due to the efficiency of modern methods. On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 2:45 PM, Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> wrote: > Hello Bob, Yes it is tempting to regulate. The first knee-jerk reaction of > all bureaucrats. It never works. Licenses is another useless instrument - > good for everybody who likes corruption. KISS is the right solution. > All corporations have boards and are regulated to some degree. That will > never be fair over the whole globe. > The idea is not to have limits and regulations. To have large number of > robots is itself no value. The cash flow generated can be taxed, VAT is a > simple to admin flat tax that can be moderated for essential merchandise. > Property taxes are not a solution. I have lived with them for over 40 > years. They are totally unfair and creates very unfair distribution of the > wealth. > Money is not the most important in an economy where basic needs are > provided. The reasons for accumulate wealth is less than today. > Hesitantly I will accept that one tax could be justified a 100% tax on > inheritance but zero percent tax on gifts.. Thereby break down the > ownership of money producing assets. As we do not know when we shall die, > it is best for the rich parent who believes that having money producing > equipment is very important to give away to all heirs as much as possible > as soon as possible. Thus spreading the wealth. > > Best Regards , > Lennart Thornros > > www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com > lenn...@thornros.com > +1 916 436 1899 > 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 > > “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a > commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM > > On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> Jed-- >> >> You noted: "Finally, the moment you try to regulate such things, >> powerful people and unscrupulous people will find ways to get around the >> regulations." >> >> I would note that those kind of people have not gotten around the Atomic >> Energy Act in this country very well. Energy produced by use of special >> nuclear materials is pretty well regulated. However, as you suggest it >> might be, it is not regulated well in all places on the Earth and may not >> be in the USA either in the future. >> >> Black markets for robots would likely crop up anyway. Regulation on the >> money makers could keep them in control however, if the government decides >> to do so. >> >> I would disagree with you that we nave no right to keep numbers of items >> (robots) down. Such control It is a collective right established by law >> that limits the availability of items. Controlled substances in this >> country are very well controlled as to the amount any person can have. >> Radioactive materials also fall into this category with amounts regulated >> to specific licenses and general licenses issued by governments. >> >> The definitions surely need to be established which distinguishes a >> computer from a robot. These would be legal definitions in laws and >> regulations and may not reflect the hazy lines between this and that which >> you suggest are a problem. >> >> My basic assumption is that technology can be regulated by a government >> for the good of the society, consistent with the will of the majority. >> This is democracy. Individuals have only certain personal rights as >> provided in constitutions. Corporations and non-natural entities are >> chartered with certain purposes established by governments. These can be >> changed or taken back by the government that approved the various purposes, >> if it is in the interest of the government (the people) to do so. >> >> Bob >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> >> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com >> *Sent:* Thursday, December 11, 2014 2:58 PM >> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash? >> >> Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> A simple law will fix the problem of robots replacing people. The main >>> features of such a law follow: >>> >>> Only real persons shall be allowed to own a robot free of tax. >>> Additional robots can be owned by any given biological person, but at an >>> increasing tax as deemed necessary to keep their numbers down will be >>> levied. . . . >>> >> >> Similar proposals have been discussed here before. Let me reiterate some >> objections: >> >> First, we do not want to keep the numbers down, and we have no right to >> do that. People and corporations should have as many robots as they want, >> just as they have as many computers as they want. >> >> Second, there is no way to define a robot or to count the number of >> robots you have. A robot can range from something as simple as the >> microprocessor control in a microwave machine, to the Baxter robot, or in >> the future up to a science fiction sentient human-like creature. By the >> first and lowest standard, I own dozens of robots already, and you can't >> tell where one starts and the other ends. There are probably several >> microprocessor controllers inside a Prius or other modern automobile. >> >> I expect that future robots will be modular and networked, with >> attachments or peripherals that can be used by different robots at >> different times. When you need some function that your own robot does not >> do, the robot will download it, or use additional robot intelligence in the >> cloud, or order an attachment part. Trying to counting robots will be kind >> of like trying to count computers. If I have one computer with two screens >> which uses a net-connected stand-alone hard disk and remote cloud storage, >> and both local and cloud-based apps, is that one computer, or two, or many? >> The question is meaningless. Is an iPad or Chromebook a computer at all? In >> 1975 I would have called them "smart terminals" rather than computers. >> >> Finally, the moment you try to regulate such things, powerful people and >> unscrupulous people will find ways to get around the regulations. They will >> have as many robots as they want, and they will easily find ways to stop >> the authorities from enumerating those robots. Especially small robots, the >> size of mice or cell phones, which I expect will be ubiquitous sometime in >> the future. >> >> - Jed >> >> >
