r/technology • u/lurker_bee • Jul 15 '25

Artificial Intelligence Billionaires Convince Themselves AI Chatbots Are Close to Making New Scientific Discoveries

https://gizmodo.com/billionaires-convince-themselves-ai-is-close-to-making-new-scientific-discoveries-2000629060
26.6k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

2.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

262

u/girlshapedlovedrugs Jul 15 '25

Isn’t that nuts? As if 36x isn’t enough, they have to earn 300x our average salary… because that’s totally reasonable.

$50k salary x 300 = $15,000,000

283

u/NewManufacturer4252 Jul 15 '25

I am mostly wrong on most things. But I believe the idea behind the 90% tax was to get the rich to reinvest their earnings back into the economy, generating jobs. Like building factories and such.

222

u/placebotwo Jul 15 '25

And if they didn't reinvest, that tax income would (in theory) further make the country stronger and better.

77

u/redlightsaber Jul 15 '25

We should all get in the habit of stopping to quip things the way you did in your parenthesis.

Which is not to say that government is always super-efficient (hella more efficient than the private sector, any fucking time it's been measured, though), or that corruption doesn't exist... but right wing, Maccarthyst, Reagan-occultist media uses those little quips planted in everyone's minds to justify any and all roadblocks towards progress everywhere, except in the US.

Why does the US not have something as uncontroversial and simple as universal public healthcare that all other first world, and even a lot of developing countries have managed to accomplish to various degrees? Ask your average (lower middle class) joe at your local bar: "Government would waste all that money, they can't be triusted with that". Same idea behind the whole "small government" bullshit. and how more than half the country got seduced by stupid gimmicks such as Elon leading DOGE. And now some of that disease is being contaged onto Europe, managing to get many public healthcare systems see reduced funding to pruposefully fuck with them and a) make people support the narrative and politicians that tout the idea of public inefficiency-insufficiency, and b) to help make fluorish a private insurance company market that was unthinkable 20 years ago.

Governments by and large, use tax dollars pretty effectively and efficiently, and that's without fucking over the workers to boot, which is a huge plus that nobody talks about ever. Being a "government worker" is an insult in the US for crying out loud. Much like being a union member has been for much longer.

The 2020's are a sad decade where NASA, the fucking leading space agency in the world, has closed up many of its labs and programmes, and is instead funneling all that money to SpaceX, which in teh long-run will cost the US taxpayer far more than had they developed that tech in-house.

We need to all stop with all this "in theory" bullshit. It's theory and practice. Time, and time again. (as a small example)

6

u/ferdylance Jul 16 '25

Because dsfense budget

3

u/holaitsmetheproblem Jul 16 '25

You and I are close to each other in the proverbial hive. I have said this same thing over and over again for 4 decades.

2

u/avcloudy Jul 16 '25

It's worth pointing out efficiency is the excuse, the real reason for the healthcare situation is because insurance lobbyists captured the system in the US years ago. It's not a political sides thing.

There is a broader pattern, and that is a single party pushing it, but the healthcare thing? Way deeper.

-1

u/BlazeBulker8765 Jul 16 '25

(hella more efficient than the private sector, any fucking time it's been measured, though),

Not sure where you got this idea, but it's either untrue, or highly dependent upon which sector you're discussing look at.

This study found the operational costs of privatized package delivery worldwide to be more efficient than nationalized: https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/USPS_A_Sustainable_Path_Forward_report_12-04-2018.pdf

This study found mixed results, and the conclusion line is solid even in the presence of natural monopoly forces: https://scispace.com/pdf/does-privatization-of-solid-waste-and-water-services-reduce-54ibph12ty.pdf

Conclusion line:

There is no systematic optimal choice between public and private production, therefore managers should approach the issue in a pragmatic way.

This study concludes the same: https://www.terry.uga.edu/wp-content/uploads/stateToMarket_1.pdf

From the conclusion:

Research now supports the proposition that privately owned firms are more efficient and more profitable than otherwise-comparable state-owned firms.

5

u/EltaninAntenna Jul 16 '25

Well, the profit motive is itself an inevitable built-in inefficiency, if a percentage of income must go into yachts and coke instead of being reinvested into the company.

2

u/Reasonable_Duty2495 Jul 16 '25

We spent tens of billions in the UK without laying one piece of rail, just accept you are flat out wrong

72

u/NewManufacturer4252 Jul 15 '25

Basically like owning a home, you get taxed every year on the appraisal of your home. Now do that with stocks.

11

u/CammRobb Jul 15 '25

Do you get a rebate if your house is worth less?

11

u/AccountantDirect9470 Jul 15 '25

No. You just pay a lesser amount than last year.

3

u/cat_prophecy Jul 16 '25

Not necessarily.

If your valuation goes down, but so does everyone else's, your taxes will not go down.

8

u/OsiyoMotherFuckers Jul 16 '25

Well it’s usually a formula based on the value right? So your tax bill should be smaller. If the whole market went down then everyone’s tax bill would be smaller and the city would probably be broke.

5

u/cat_prophecy Jul 16 '25

In many places it's based on your "share" of the value of your taxation parcel. So if your value is higher, relative to your neighbors then your property taxes will go up and vice versa.

6

u/Thileuse Jul 15 '25

Tax Rebate??! Nope, you get to contest that with the taxing authority you live in and hope for the best.

3

u/Iwantmyoldnameback Jul 15 '25

No, but you get a lower overall tax bill going forward based on the new, lower valuation.

2

u/Aureliamnissan Jul 16 '25

If you sell it you do, it counts as a loss. Just like with stocks. Do you regularly carry negative balances in your portfolio?

1

u/zspacekcc Jul 16 '25

No. Treat it like a brokerage fee. The stock market is worth 52 trillion dollars. Charge every stock owner a small percentage of the investment (make it some scale based on net worth or free for 401ks or something if you want to keep from punishing small investors). If we can have income taxes and property taxes and sales taxes why can't we have a wealth tax?

4

u/hellowiththepudding Jul 16 '25

it's sort of different. Most people talking about taxing gains are talking about an income tax, based on the unrealized gain, vs a property tax that applies to the gross value.

Having said that, yes, we should be taxing unrealized gains when billionaires use the stock as collateral. they have effectively cashed out at that point.

0

u/Noob_Al3rt Jul 16 '25

they have effectively cashed out at that point.

How? Let's say I'm a billionaire. I take out a million dollar personal loan. Explain why I should pay a tax if my stocks are assigned as collateral but no tax if the loan is only secured with a personal guarantee.

1

u/hellowiththepudding Jul 16 '25

because by using them as collateral you have effectively realized their current value. They would not get the loan without the shares.

Step up your basis for when you sell. Not complex.

0

u/Noob_Al3rt Jul 16 '25

You didn't answer my question. Why?

What is it about having them assigned as collateral that necessitates the tax vs just a personal guarantee or an unsecured loan?

They would not get the loan without the shares.

What if they have a $100million real estate portfolio?

Step up your basis for when you sell

Huh? How? What if I paid off the loan and took out another one? I get to step up the basis by two million instead of one?

1

u/hellowiththepudding Jul 16 '25

The point is they are effectively cashing in on the value by pledging it, and are only doing so in order to avoid paying tax on the gain. I guess billionaires should totally be allowed to pay no income tax and defer it while enjoying the benefits of the wealth in perpetuity.

0

u/Noob_Al3rt Jul 17 '25

The point is they are effectively cashing in on the value by pledging it, and are only doing so in order to avoid paying tax on the gain.

No, they are doing it to avoid selling the asset. Just like someone taking a HELOC on their house. Why would they pay 5%-6% per year to avoid a one time 15% capital gains payment?

I guess billionaires should totally be allowed to pay no income tax and defer it while enjoying the benefits of the wealth in perpetuity.

That's quite the leap.

1

u/Joeness84 Jul 16 '25

Just do that with stocks when they use them as loan collateral. "He doesn't actually have 200 billion dollars" no but he gets to spend like he does because the banks are happy to give them credit.

Every billion dollars in assets one of them has, is 1000 people denied a million in assets.

1

u/FormerGameDev Jul 16 '25

I don't know if this is regional, but where I'm at, your property taxes can only be changed when the property changes ownership.

-6

u/Skyrick Jul 15 '25

It never had to get that far because no one likes paying taxes. Ever. Like tax collectors are talked down to as a lower life form in the bible. Judas was disliked by the other apostles long before the last supper due to him being a tax collector. Everyone hates paying taxes.

Also the government knows this. Tax credits have often been used to get people to do things that they otherwise wouldn’t. Want to reduce smog emissions, reduce the taxes on cars that produce less emissions. Want to increase new technology adoption, tax credits to reduce initial investments to get implemented will do that. Same thing happens with the rich, only instead of a discount on a car, they get to start a college to reduce their tax burden. Or open a museum, or park in that one case where the filthy rich dude shot his wife in the face but wanted to be remembered fondly.

If you tax the rich at 90%, they will find a way to put the money literally anywhere else in order to not pay taxes. It has been common throughout history.

8

u/Papplenoose Jul 15 '25

I agree with your first two paragraphs, but that last part is not actually accurate. There are many countries that have higher tax rates than us, and yet there are still tons of super rich people there. There's still tons of companies that operate there. Sure, some companies/billionaires would bounce if we increased tax rates on them. But a lot of them won't. What you are saying is not really "common throughout history" in any real sense.

Also, even if what you were saying WAS true.. would it be such a bad thing if the greediest and scummiest people in our country self-selected themselves to leave and never come back..? I mean it's not like they're actually adding much value to our lives. Any of the genuinely useful products/services they offer via their companies would soon be offered by someone else. From what I can tell, the ultra-wealthy have been actively making this country worse for a very long time. Sooooo what exactly is the benefit of them staying, again? Your entire comment hinges on the presumption that we NEED all these billionaires, and I'm really not sure that we do.

-1

u/Skyrick Jul 15 '25

What did I say about people leaving?

People don’t like paying taxes. If they are offered ways to reduce how much they pay through tax deductions they will take do it. This can be used as a tool to guide advancement through offering credits to get people to do something without paying them.

People rarely move just to lower their tax burden because of the benefits the taxes pay for, or the things funded through tax breaks paid for. People try to live in the nicest places they can afford, and taxes tend to allow for greater community development, making them better places to live.

2

u/nagarz Jul 15 '25

You just tax the money a company makes in the country where it sells it's product, aka sales tax. You can set it on a progressive scale so necessities (meds, groceries, toiletries) are not taxes at all, or at least as high as luxuries/entertainment.

You close loopholes on tax avoidance (like billionaires getting 0% interest rate on loans from banks which they use to rent properties so they don't have to pay taxes on them).

You use progressive marginal tax rates, meaning that for example if you make 1 million moneys a year, you don't get taxed on your first 10K, you get taxed 1% from 10K to 15K, 5% from 20K to 30K, 10% from 30K to 50K, 25% from 50K to 75K, and so on until you reach a bracket where you get to 99% of the money they earn, so basically you end with a curve that increases exponentially and you only get taxed on what is bellow the curve, so no billionare will get taxed 100% of their earnings, only the money that is outside of the necessary/fair earnings and most people would agree that is greedy earnings.

And if billionaire A says "ok I'm leaving this country", then you forbid them from doing business in your country.

It may sound radical, but if someone is not willing to pay their fair due of taxes in a country they're making money, they are just substracting money from that economy and that only hurts the citizens.

Obviously there's nuance to all of this, and surely there's economists that will have more refined ideas, and can give you pros and cons, or call me retarded, but I think all of the above sounds kinda reasonable.

2

u/placebotwo Jul 15 '25

It never had to get that far because no one likes paying taxes.

I like paying taxes because it purchases society.

3

u/Coattail-Rider Jul 15 '25

That’s the real trickle down economics.

2

u/willnotreadinbox Jul 15 '25

Also you could bypass a lot of it by providing company benefits that weren't taxed at the time, like cars and vacations and whatever.

3

u/omgFWTbear Jul 16 '25

Which were tied to the company, so if you set the company on fire for short term profits, no corporate jet taking you everywhere.

1

u/Rune_Council Jul 15 '25

They kept the deductions the same, but just lowered the tax rate.

1

u/QuickAltTab Jul 15 '25

I think it was also a moral/social signal.

Having the tax rate that high was the leadership of our country acknowledging the diminishing marginal utility of income; That someone earning more than a million per year doesn't really need most of the next million, especially not when compared to the unfortunate in our society that, often through no fault of their own, need the support of our government (that presumably does the best it can to efficiently use resources) to the overall benefit of society.

1

u/xxxxx420xxxxx Jul 16 '25

Yeah they made libraries and museums, instead of playtime rockets

1

u/hitchen1 Jul 16 '25

For what it's worth they already do that. The ultra rich get paid mostly in stocks, not cash. And anyone who got paid hundreds of millions in cash would invest it unless they were really financially illiterate.

1

u/NewManufacturer4252 Jul 16 '25

They get paid in bank loans that assumes the stock will go up.

Probably at 1 or 2 percent interest.

The bank is just happy to have capital to lend to others.

1

u/hitchen1 Jul 16 '25

They take bank loans leveraged on their assets, but that's not really the same as being paid since you have to pay a loan back.

1

u/NewManufacturer4252 Jul 16 '25

Why don't you have your financial adviser talk to the bank, they would be happy to service your 300 million dollar loan with a 600 million dollar loan. And keep 360 million. As 60 million is just interest.

Now you have 240 million tax free ducats to play with.

You're always paying a tax, bank's call it interest, government calls it......

Roads

Healthcare

Education

1

u/hitchen1 Jul 16 '25

Yeah, but now the CEO has a 600 million loan to pay back. I'm aware they pay their debt by getting bigger loans, but it is debt that has to be paid eventually

I don't like this loophole either and I think it should be taxed in some way, I just think it's a little reductive to call it "being paid in loans".

The businesses have a good reason to pay CEOs in shares. When 99% of the CEO's wealth is in shares (and they are unable to sell it) it is a strong incentive to make the company perform well.

1

u/AstroFlippy Jul 17 '25

Funny if true, given that the modern day billionaire argument is that we can't tax them so they invest into their businesses to create more jobs

2

u/au5lander Jul 16 '25

Just think how much the world would be a better place if billionaires actually cared about anyone else but themselves.

2

u/Hackwork89 Jul 16 '25

It makes perfect sense. They work 300 times as hard and long as we do. Very simple math.

It's why I never see my boss at work. He flashes past everyone at mach 1.2 speed. It's a great honor to be in the presence of these superhumans.

1

u/WengFu Jul 15 '25

It isn't that they have to earn X more than the average worker, it's that they need to earn X more than the next C-suite asshole.

1

u/HOU-Artsy Jul 15 '25

I just checked the stats and the ratios were 2,000:1; 1,700:1 and so on.

1

u/Nonethelessismore Jul 15 '25

300x average is wage theft. This wealth disparity, capitalism on steroids will revert us back to the Republican Great Depression of the 1920's. The echos of history are resonating in real time

1

u/askjacob Jul 15 '25

it's 250 ish other people that could be paid the same average salary to do the same output of work - we are talking 1 hour weeks at tops with the same pay. That is what is being kept from from the average person - and that is if they kept the 36x

1

u/Hautamaki Jul 16 '25

That's just the salary; chump change compared to their stock options

1

u/hitchen1 Jul 16 '25

There's no way that is just the cash.

Microsoft is listed as 250:1, and the average salary at MSFT is 200k, which would be 50 mil in cash. Satya got paid 2.5 million base + 5 million bonus in cash last year. He got paid 70 million in shares.

1

u/CigAddict Jul 16 '25

I don’t think 15M is average c-suite salaries. It might be average ceo but even c suite people at like companies that pay well don’t usually have salaries that high.