5 ms·

This is 9 years old. Shows that Sam Altman has been thinking about this for a while https://blog.samaltman.com/american-equity https://blog.samaltman.com/americ

This is 9 years old. Shows that Sam Altman has been thinking about this for a while https://blog.samaltman.com/american-equity https://blog.samaltman.com/american-equity

ragebol 3mo ago
Discussed also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15789108 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15789108.
- ragebol 3mo ago
  Besides direct control, what could a dividend on the profits do what a well-proportioned corporate tax on profits cannot do? The state would only get dividends assuming it would not sell shares. And the state can exert control much more fairly (ie. to all competitors as well) with regulation and laws. Regulations and taxes are seen as 'un-american' I suppose, while giving stock to the government is not somehow?
  - ethbr1 3mo ago
    That's exactly the end run here. Taxes depend on laws (however imperfect and full of loopholes) that are equally applied across all corporations. Government equity/profit stakes are exactly the opposite: negotiated per corporation and cede power to the corporation. If Altman was honest about his question framing, the simplest answer would be "Tax AI companies more heavily and use the proceeds to fund universal social benefits / payments." In contrast, a one-off 5% equity stake is a bribe and nothing else.
  - sbayg 3mo ago
    Why assume it wouldn’t sell shares? If the state can take 5% ownership, it can sell that 5% for profit, and come back for another 5% next year. Ideally the rules on when to sell would be systematic, or made by a neutral bipartisan committee of advisors, but I suspect maybe it would be just be up to the treasury (like the crypto it now holds).
    - ragebol 3mo ago
      Coming back for another 5% seems unlikely. But the whole thing is unlikely and uncommon, so what's it matter?
      - sbayg 3mo ago
        Strange conclusion to reach. Taxes are generally assessed periodically (annually for income, property taxes, etc…). Time is money. The tax assessor always comes back for more, as long as there is more to tax.
  - jimmy76615 3mo ago
    > Regulations and taxes are seen as 'un-american' I suppose, while giving stock to the government is not somehow? Under normal circumstances the government owning stocks is just as un-american, but nothing is normal when it comes to AI.
    - ragebol 3mo ago
      Exacerbated by nothing being normal with this administration, to say the least.
  - triceratops 3mo ago
    > what could a dividend on the profits do what a well-proportioned corporate tax on profits cannot do? Incentives: Management always gets rewarded for maximizing dividends and minimizing taxable income.

This is 9 years old. Shows that Sam Altman has been thinking about this for a while https://blog.samaltman.com/american-equity https://blog.samaltman.com/american-equity

ragebol 3mo ago

Discussed also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15789108 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15789108.

ragebol 3mo ago
Besides direct control, what could a dividend on the profits do what a well-proportioned corporate tax on profits cannot do? The state would only get dividends assuming it would not sell shares. And the state can exert control much more fairly (ie. to all competitors as well) with regulation and laws. Regulations and taxes are seen as 'un-american' I suppose, while giving stock to the government is not somehow?
- ethbr1 3mo ago
  That's exactly the end run here. Taxes depend on laws (however imperfect and full of loopholes) that are equally applied across all corporations. Government equity/profit stakes are exactly the opposite: negotiated per corporation and cede power to the corporation. If Altman was honest about his question framing, the simplest answer would be "Tax AI companies more heavily and use the proceeds to fund universal social benefits / payments." In contrast, a one-off 5% equity stake is a bribe and nothing else.
- sbayg 3mo ago
  Why assume it wouldn’t sell shares? If the state can take 5% ownership, it can sell that 5% for profit, and come back for another 5% next year. Ideally the rules on when to sell would be systematic, or made by a neutral bipartisan committee of advisors, but I suspect maybe it would be just be up to the treasury (like the crypto it now holds).
  - ragebol 3mo ago
    Coming back for another 5% seems unlikely. But the whole thing is unlikely and uncommon, so what's it matter?
    - sbayg 3mo ago
      Strange conclusion to reach. Taxes are generally assessed periodically (annually for income, property taxes, etc…). Time is money. The tax assessor always comes back for more, as long as there is more to tax.
- jimmy76615 3mo ago
  > Regulations and taxes are seen as 'un-american' I suppose, while giving stock to the government is not somehow? Under normal circumstances the government owning stocks is just as un-american, but nothing is normal when it comes to AI.
  - ragebol 3mo ago
    Exacerbated by nothing being normal with this administration, to say the least.
- triceratops 3mo ago
  > what could a dividend on the profits do what a well-proportioned corporate tax on profits cannot do? Incentives: Management always gets rewarded for maximizing dividends and minimizing taxable income.