You would have to show how you made sufficient surplus from sales minus the cost of labour to pay off the loan. The business case usually has a solid section on this.
Obviously there is a future made of automation and ai but that is also the end of capitalism as the workers have not been paid to buy the product you just made.
Seems sensible but if we imagine that by some measure, like PISA, our children seemed to be stagnating or going backwards, who will be accountable? Then a PM will say, elect me and i will take responsibility.
It's annoying but also inevitable for as long as we demand that our PMs fix things and be accountable.
Well, not to diss on giving to charity but two technical arguments against. One is, you are acting as an additional tax on the worker (the source of the surplus) and then redirecting that tax to charity. It's fine but the elected government has democratically selected priorities that they can rarely fund so it is better to just give it to the treasury. And 2, just don't collect this tax in the first place, allowing the worker to spend it on the local economy.
@primal_buddhist
@lemmy.world