Post by account_disabled on Feb 28, 2024 6:27:18 GMT
Similarly (those with grayer hair will remember this) the spread of Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Office and the personal PC in the 80s and 90s incredibly increased personal productivity and radically modified classic secretarial jobs, typing, accounting, and so on. Those activities have actually shrunk to the point of cancellation. Or to specialize by embracing the innovation of digital. But no one has ever dreamed of putting a tax on Microsoft Word in favor of the typist fund . Or on Microsoft PowerPoint to compensate for the losses of projection film factories. DO WE TAX GOOD IDEAS? It was about innovation . Today we often call them "disruptive" solutions, and generating significant changes to the business models previously in force.
Taxing an element of innovation because it puts the status quo in difficulty, in my opinion corresponds to aiming to fix the situation in the current condition, trying to slow down innovation at any cost, regardless of whether it is a good idea or not. It means more or less " I'll tax you because things have to stay as they are ". It seems unacceptable to me as a reference principle. In my opinion it is a Nepal Phone Number proposal that lacks foresight. It is against the principle of impermanence of things. Things will change, inevitably and relentlessly. Trying to stop them, rather than understanding them and possibly addressing them, is vain and narrow-minded. Of course, you can argue that we are talking about robots and automation, and not a software package.
Robots create fears. We are somehow frightened by a mechanical device that replaces and does a job better than a human can do it (then we spend eight-nine hours a day on the smartphone entrusting our life to it, but this doesn't worry us in the slightest). But in my opinion it is an extraordinary opportunity that comes our way. Taxing it to slow it down or hinder it doesn't seem sensible to me. WHERE TO ACT TO REDUCE ANY FEAR Here are 4 alternatives that in my opinion could be much more effective and promote overall growth. I am mainly addressing politicians , who have the responsibility of establishing medium and long-term choices and visions, and teachers , who have the responsibility of training the critical and choice-making skills of young people.
Taxing an element of innovation because it puts the status quo in difficulty, in my opinion corresponds to aiming to fix the situation in the current condition, trying to slow down innovation at any cost, regardless of whether it is a good idea or not. It means more or less " I'll tax you because things have to stay as they are ". It seems unacceptable to me as a reference principle. In my opinion it is a Nepal Phone Number proposal that lacks foresight. It is against the principle of impermanence of things. Things will change, inevitably and relentlessly. Trying to stop them, rather than understanding them and possibly addressing them, is vain and narrow-minded. Of course, you can argue that we are talking about robots and automation, and not a software package.
Robots create fears. We are somehow frightened by a mechanical device that replaces and does a job better than a human can do it (then we spend eight-nine hours a day on the smartphone entrusting our life to it, but this doesn't worry us in the slightest). But in my opinion it is an extraordinary opportunity that comes our way. Taxing it to slow it down or hinder it doesn't seem sensible to me. WHERE TO ACT TO REDUCE ANY FEAR Here are 4 alternatives that in my opinion could be much more effective and promote overall growth. I am mainly addressing politicians , who have the responsibility of establishing medium and long-term choices and visions, and teachers , who have the responsibility of training the critical and choice-making skills of young people.