Tuesday, July 10, 2018

Defeating Wealth Inequality - Engineering Paradise


While this is all well and good, even with high taxation, many would argue that the wealthy may yet find ways to use their superior access to funds to control those who have less, or those who are greedily seeking to increase their wealth.

This of course, could lead to yet another era of massive separation of wealth between the very rich and those who are only receiving their unconditional basic income allowance.

People who make more than 200,000 units per year are taxed mostly at an 80% tax rate.  They are therefore creating enough value in our society to receive large amounts of money but only keeping 20% of the amount for their own use just by paying taxes.  That’s good.   These people have already made, net, over 130,000 Units, which is over 10,000 Units per month they can spend and invest.  At that income and above, most normal goods and services can be purchased many times over, which is a waste of resources in some way.  For example, though I’m not against collecting cars, most rich people don’t have that specific hobby.  What should the wealthy do with their money?  Right now, the wealthy spend extra money to avoid taxes by purchasing goods that accountants can deduct from taxes, or by setting up company structures to receive a lower tax rate overall.  There is just too much to spend realistically without getting opulent and wasteful (socially and environmentally).  Therefore, I argue that revenues above 200,000 Units should be heavily taxed to serve the community.  Besides, this affects very few people in the world.  In Canada, only 0.7% of all working adults make over 200,000.  Those people can buy anything their family could ever need and with the leftover, they can invest in projects of value to society.

Does that sound fair in our current economy?  Of course not!  If you manage to earn huge sums of money by out-performing several other people out of skill, intelligence, or good fortune, you should have control over most of that amount as a reward for your hard work!

Fortunately, in the ideal world, people aren’t working for a living and every basic need is covered through automation.  Basic income is provided to all individual so there is no stress for anyone to suddenly become destitute, whether citizens are wealthy or receive no additional revenues. 
The additional income received from work is derived from additional value creation, like luxuries, art, entertainment, family, supervision, community building, regulation, and so on.  Modern AI will be able to tackle any problem in our future; however, we will want to some things ourselves out of pleasure.  We won’t be just lying around letting AI and robots do all the work.  People will be active doing different types of work in demand because other citizens will request it. 

For example, in the future, many restaurants will likely be automated fully.  However, people will still want sometimes to go out and be with people, waited by fascinating personalities, served by fallible human beings with emotions, perform or listen to artistic performances in public.  The list goes on.  Just because robots and AI can do something better, it doesn’t mean we’ll want it to.  Therefore, in the previous section of this book, I talk about the presence of workers in each ministry and private sector companies emerging and taking on tasks.  Though people won’t practically need to work, we will nonetheless want to feel useful and find meaning in society, and that automatically means we’ll find ways to add value to the world.[1]  Adding value to the world means there is demand for it that can be purchased by others.  The adage “Money doesn’t buy happiness” comes to mind.  It seems like finding a personal positive purpose leads to well-being more than anything.
The cycle of value generation through human beings doesn’t stop with the appearance of highly competent artificial intelligence.  Thus, individuals who make large income would be great social contributors, admired.

Because of these higher tax brackets, I suspect most people with the ability to provide high social value in such ways will feel compelled to work less, leaving more work for other people and new ideas.  On the other hand, the wealthy in this system may yet find ways to invest and grow new ideas in collaboration with others, thus multiplying their earnings through even more significant value-added contributions to the world.  Thus, if tax havens are eliminated in the system, many highly motivated individuals may yet get rich, and through their wealth will contribute even more to society, elevating many others in gaining purchasing power through their basic income.

In fact, the only way to reliably direct a population towards certain goals is to understand its motivations.

Motivation is the key

Thankfully, what defines individual motivation have already been determined:  emotional well-being and life evaluation.  We’ve figured out how to ensure people have a good shot at reaching optimal well-being by creating an economy that gives people basic income and negates chances of poverty.  Finding how we can optimize life evaluation in society is less obvious.  Life evaluation changes from one person to the next and with individuals in time.  A sense of achievement is a subjective measure when we evaluate our lives.

In our past, our civilizations have suffered at the hands of some few people who evaluated success in their own lives by how much of the world they managed to control or how much money they had in their bank accounts.

Kings, emperors, business tycoons have historically worked hard to position themselves over and above others, to their detriment.  Those who wish to dominate others where everything is abundant and there is no struggle to survive are psychologically abnormal and account for a very small portion of the population.[2] When everyone can get what they want thanks to automation, bypassing any human barrier in offer and demand if need be, there is no need for dominant behavior.  To say the least, dominating behavior would certainly not be socially acceptable in any way and easily discoverable due to the massive amount of public social interactions we’ll have to operate our AI systems in our future.  Dominating others can be a learned behavior but in our ideal world it is much more likely to be caused by the desire to be admired by others, not to cause any harm towards others. [3] These naturally motivated towards dominance would not be a serious threat in the ideal world if the individuals are able to distinguish themselves from the rest of the world in some way.  With an 80% tax rate on high revenues, being recognized by wealth means lots of money recirculated into the economy, which is good.  Those few who seek to dominate others because they are mentally ill, however, should be identified and treated, thus effectively removing the threat of the domination motivation altogether.

Another important element to direct positive social behavior is to avoid financial loopholes for the wealthy such as wealthy people using company structures (estates, corporations, not-for-profit designations) to avoid paying high taxes.  In our ideal society we need laws that force individuals to pay proper individual taxes for wages earned.  Hence, our laws need to separate company earnings from individual earnings.  Though this does allow the use of companies to “hide” money from taxation for a while.  Wealthy individuals can set up a company for a stated purpose but only use it to “hold” a bunch of cash at a lower tax rate.  However, lawmakers can make it illegal to create such entities without other activity to avoid contributions towards social good. 

What we want to encourage however, is for the wealthy to reinvest their hard-earned income into new ventures.  Thus, if money is indeed invested in a new company with proper operations or plan for the funds, this behavior should be encouraged.  The investors of this world can put the extra money they do not need for themselves into genuine business investments.  This would indeed reduce the taxes they would pay to the government.  On the other hand, it encourages innovation, investments in other people’s ideas, and business growth.  Corporate tax rates remaining reasonably low (as they are today, roughly), would encourage this behavior from the wealthy to either contribute more heavily to social wellbeing (high taxes going to UBI, hospitals, schools etc.), or contributing to new value generation at risk, in exchange for a potential greater reward later, if the venture is successful.

Still, human behavior on the topic of life evaluation can be elucidated in general terms by understanding human biochemistry.  You see, what gives us direction, our motivation, is our emotional response to outside stimuli.  Though everyone’s responses to stimuli from the environment, from memories and experiences are different, thus defining what we consider our life goals, these are all based on the same emotions we all have.  Different psychologists have tried to determine basic emotions and map them to certain molecules in our blood.  Well known psychologist Robert Plutchik famously defined emotions in the late 20th century as being mixes of 7 basic emotions, each of which are associated with specific biochemical pathways.  Each pathway leads to specific reactions in the body that every human being knows very well.  We also know that each human will physiologically react the same way to specific emotions.

Plutchik’s Wheel of Emotions

Hence, people may feel anger for different reasons based on culture and circumstances, but the effect of anger, the hormones produced and how the biochemistry temporarily changes the brain and the body’s system, is always the same no matter who lives through the emotion.  It is the same for every single emotion.


Most emotions however, serve us only in situations of survival:  disgust manifests rationally when we think we may get poisoned.  Fear is experienced when running will help us avoid harm. In Plutchik’s Wheel of Emotions, there are seven negative emotions (anger, disgust, sadness, surprise, anticipation, trust and fear) that work to help us survive.  There is only one positive emotion, joy.  Joy has no survival purpose.  It instead guides us towards optimistic outcomes. 

Therefore, where there are only temporary, and hopefully, few experiences of any of the negative emotions suffered by humans in our ideal world, the strongest and most frequent feeling people will strive for are feelings of joy.  That is, opposite to trying to avoid any of the negative emotions.  Also, discussed earlier in this book, we know that in situations of low stress, human beings will automatically, biologically, be calm, thoughtful, social beings. 

Hence, unraveling how people will behave regarding life evaluation in an ideal world means we would seek joy from a state of calm, selfless and social state most of the time.
That’s great since it means most people would automatically find ways to add value to society, giving them joy.  

Regulations, as always, will help curb the behaviors of those few that need help with social adjustment or the mentally ill.  Otherwise, our ideal society should naturally work towards a wide variety of occupations for social good naturally, with minimal need for controls.

This natural human behavior, when our survival is not at stake, would unavoidably lead to the more intelligent and capable members of our society to care for everyone else.  They will naturally become the top earners in the ideal economy because they contribute more value than anyone else, thus, thanks to the high tax rate, these individuals will be contributing even more.

Equality through chaos

Humans can’t feel free or be controlled through mounds of rules.  We can’t define joy and happiness for individuals and we cannot tell people how to evaluate their lives and give it a grade.  This is very personal and subjective.  What we can do is give ourselves all the chances we need to feel joy in life, be selfless and let the chaos that is society balance itself out with the understanding and mechanisms in place to always provide basic needs and services to all human beings, without exception.  Human biology will take care of the balance on its own with most people finding more happiness through selfless acts. 

We’ll evolve, change, make mistakes and adapt to new challenges as we move forward, assisted by the automated systems we have created. 

We can feel free to find our own individual paths, in a socially healthy way.

Discovering a new life purpose

So, how can we find this new path for ourselves, knowing everything is abundant and automated systems can potentially provide for everything we may need.  For centuries, humans have defined themselves by their place in society, therefore our careers.  Societies needed people to work for it to function.    That’s why in the English language we introduce ourselves with our job.  We say, “I am a teacher”, or “I am an artist”.  We say this because this is what we learned from home and school what our purpose was in society.

It is time for a new way to define ourselves.  Not through our jobs, but through our social contributions or mere presence among others that care about us.

This is something only few have researched because until now, it is only theory.  We can now envision the possibility of life without each of us having to work to live.  A life where the cogs of the social machine are sophisticated machines and the software, is the people.

How then do we choose a new purpose without a history to guide us through the process?  
Since we all seek joy and the highest joy is attained by giving, or love, whether it is family or a community, human beings will naturally find their place where they are happiest.

What a better way than to live a life following your “purpose of the day” without worry.  At the end of our lives, we can then feel good about what we’ve achieved because it will likely be a long labor of love and community.


[1] Steve Taylor Ph.D.  (July 2013)  The power of purpose. - https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/out-the-darkness/201307/the-power-purpose
[2] Dario Maestripieri, Ph.D.  (March 2012).  Social dominance explained, part 1.  - https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/games-primates-play/201203/social-dominance-explained-part-i
[3] Sheri L. Johnson et al.  (July 2012). - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3383914/

No comments:

Post a Comment