this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2025
947 points (95.6% liked)

memes

18521 readers
3437 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads/AI SlopNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Resplendent606@piefed.social 5 points 16 hours ago

I apologize if it could have been worded better.

Here is my train of thought:

By removing a job from the labor market, they are essentially removing an entire salary from the economy. Normally, that employee would be expecting to find another job. With entire industries are removing a crazy number of jobs, the economy would not be expected to be able to provide another job to all of those workers.

I believe there should be a penalty to the company for eliminating jobs from the economy to slow down or prevent it from happening. I would tax the corporation the full salary of the job that they eliminated. We would use that money to fund for UBI.

I understand UBI should not be conditional and it does not have to be in my example. However, there needs to be a way to fund it. Perhaps if the amount of money collected from the "ai tax" is not enough to provide UBI at the level that is fair to everyone, it should also be funded by the wealth tax that I also mentioned.

I hope that clears it up.