So Bill Gates wants to tax robots… well, how about SOFTWARE? May fit easily into certain definitions of ROBOT. Especially if we realize it is the software what makes robot (in that line of argumentation) a “job stealing evil” (100% retroactive tax on evil profits from selling software would probably shut Billy’s mouth).
Now how about AI? Going to “steal” virtually ALL JOBS… friendly or not.
And let’s go one step further: who is the culprit? The devil who had an IDEA!
The one who invented the robot, its application in the production, programmer who wrote the software, designed neural nets, etc.
So, let’s tax ideas and thinking as such… all orwellian/huxleyian fantasies fade short in the Brave New Singularity.
And let’s go one step further: who is the culprit? The devil who had an IDEA!
This is the point at which the proposal becomes obviously insane. Not coincidentally, it is also the point at which the proposal stops having anything to do with the thing Bill Gates said he was in favour of. (It is more like saying “we tax income people get from doing their jobs, so we should tax those people’s parents for producing a person who did work that yielded taxable income”.)
As username2 says, what gets taxed is acquisition of money; when I pay income tax it isn’t a tax on me but on my receipt of that income. If anything like a “robot tax” happens, here’s the right way to think of it: a company is doing the same work while employing fewer people, so it makes more profit, and it pays tax on that profit so more profit means more tax. We are generally happy[1] taxing corporate profits, and we are generally happy[2] taxing companies when their profitable activities impose nasty externalities on others, and some kinds of “robot tax” could fit happily into that framework.
[1] Perhaps you aren’t. But most of us seem to be, since this is a thing that happens all over the world and I haven’t seen much objection to it.
[2] This isn’t so clear; I’ve not seen a lot of objection to taxes of this sort, but I also think they aren’t used as much as maybe they should be, so maybe they are unpopular.
(For what it’s worth, I am not myself in favour of a “robot tax” as such, but if we do find that robots or AI or other technological advances make some kinds of business hugely more profitable then I think it’s reasonable for governments to look for ways to direct some of the benefit their way, to be used to help people whose lives become more difficult as machines get good at doing what used to be humans’ jobs.)
That would explain all those sci-fi robots who only walk around destroying stuff and never build anything. They were programmed with an incentive to keep the VAT low, they took it too literally, and things got out of control.
and we are generally happy[2] taxing companies when their profitable activities impose nasty externalities on others
Maybe true, but the sort of externality that occurs when some jobs are paid less because of robots is a pecuniary externality, not a real externality—so the usual argument for taxing these activities doesn’t quite apply. Now, taxation of capital is actually somewhat justified (and robots are capital, obviously), but really only as an indirect taxation of especially valuable skill endowments (such as, hypothetically, the skill of repairing robots, or superintending a robot-reliant business) - and then only at rather mild levels that are already in play with the current income tax. (If income redistribution was not a factor, you’d rather tax consumption, labor income and resource rents + real externalities).
Actually, you don’t even need to tax corporate profits in this scenario. Just tax when actual people get money—company makes more profit, eventually it needs to distribute that profit to shareholders (dividends) or employees (higher wages for the non-displaced). Tax at that point, not along the way.
I dunno, it’s hard enough trying to determine if and where profit was made, in order to tax it. If we didn’t tax profits and only distributions then there would be no taxes to collect. Companies and individuals would all claim that any profit are being retained for future investment or for hoarding and not actually distributed to owners. That is why we tax non distributed retained earning.
So Bill Gates wants to tax robots… well, how about SOFTWARE? May fit easily into certain definitions of ROBOT. Especially if we realize it is the software what makes robot (in that line of argumentation) a “job stealing evil” (100% retroactive tax on evil profits from selling software would probably shut Billy’s mouth).
Now how about AI? Going to “steal” virtually ALL JOBS… friendly or not.
And let’s go one step further: who is the culprit? The devil who had an IDEA!
The one who invented the robot, its application in the production, programmer who wrote the software, designed neural nets, etc.
So, let’s tax ideas and thinking as such… all orwellian/huxleyian fantasies fade short in the Brave New Singularity.
Can we please bring back downvoting?
I’d say that you are not supposed to tax people, you are supposed to tax flows of money, e.g. income, profit, sales, etc.
This is the point at which the proposal becomes obviously insane. Not coincidentally, it is also the point at which the proposal stops having anything to do with the thing Bill Gates said he was in favour of. (It is more like saying “we tax income people get from doing their jobs, so we should tax those people’s parents for producing a person who did work that yielded taxable income”.)
As username2 says, what gets taxed is acquisition of money; when I pay income tax it isn’t a tax on me but on my receipt of that income. If anything like a “robot tax” happens, here’s the right way to think of it: a company is doing the same work while employing fewer people, so it makes more profit, and it pays tax on that profit so more profit means more tax. We are generally happy[1] taxing corporate profits, and we are generally happy[2] taxing companies when their profitable activities impose nasty externalities on others, and some kinds of “robot tax” could fit happily into that framework.
[1] Perhaps you aren’t. But most of us seem to be, since this is a thing that happens all over the world and I haven’t seen much objection to it.
[2] This isn’t so clear; I’ve not seen a lot of objection to taxes of this sort, but I also think they aren’t used as much as maybe they should be, so maybe they are unpopular.
(For what it’s worth, I am not myself in favour of a “robot tax” as such, but if we do find that robots or AI or other technological advances make some kinds of business hugely more profitable then I think it’s reasonable for governments to look for ways to direct some of the benefit their way, to be used to help people whose lives become more difficult as machines get good at doing what used to be humans’ jobs.)
Isn’t a VAT already basically a Robot Tax?
That would explain all those sci-fi robots who only walk around destroying stuff and never build anything. They were programmed with an incentive to keep the VAT low, they took it too literally, and things got out of control.
Seems less so than a tax on corporate profits is. Am I missing something?
Maybe true, but the sort of externality that occurs when some jobs are paid less because of robots is a pecuniary externality, not a real externality—so the usual argument for taxing these activities doesn’t quite apply. Now, taxation of capital is actually somewhat justified (and robots are capital, obviously), but really only as an indirect taxation of especially valuable skill endowments (such as, hypothetically, the skill of repairing robots, or superintending a robot-reliant business) - and then only at rather mild levels that are already in play with the current income tax. (If income redistribution was not a factor, you’d rather tax consumption, labor income and resource rents + real externalities).
Actually, you don’t even need to tax corporate profits in this scenario. Just tax when actual people get money—company makes more profit, eventually it needs to distribute that profit to shareholders (dividends) or employees (higher wages for the non-displaced). Tax at that point, not along the way.
I dunno, it’s hard enough trying to determine if and where profit was made, in order to tax it. If we didn’t tax profits and only distributions then there would be no taxes to collect. Companies and individuals would all claim that any profit are being retained for future investment or for hoarding and not actually distributed to owners. That is why we tax non distributed retained earning.
There won’t be a blanket tax on all robots but self-driving cars and trucks can be taxed directly.
Taxing them enough to reduce their usage means less carbon emissions.
If your goal is to reduce carbon emissions, then tax the gasoline.
Politically taxing gasoline is very unpopular and there’s no majority for carbon taxes.
Politically, taxing gasoline is utterly commonplace and accepted. Every developed country except Mexico does it, and every U.S. state.
In the US it is not high enough to fully pay for the highway infrastructure because it’s politically unpopular.