Paul L. Caron
Dean


Sunday, February 19, 2017

Bill Gates:  Robots That Displace Workers Should Be Taxed

Quartz, The Robot That Takes Your Job Should Pay Taxes, Says Bill Gates:

Robots are taking human jobs. But Bill Gates believes that governments should tax companies’ use of them, as a way to at least temporarily slow the spread of automation and to fund other types of employment.

It’s a striking position from the world’s richest man and a self-described techno-optimist who co-founded Microsoft, one of the leading players in artificial-intelligence technology.

In a recent interview with Quartz, Gates said that a robot tax could finance jobs taking care of elderly people or working with kids in schools, for which needs are unmet and to which humans are particularly well suited. He argues that governments must oversee such programs rather than relying on businesses, in order to redirect the jobs to help people with lower incomes. The idea is not totally theoretical: EU lawmakers considered a proposal to tax robot owners to pay for training for workers who lose their jobs, though on Feb. 16 the legislators ultimately rejected it.

“You ought to be willing to raise the tax level and even slow down the speed” of automation, Gates argues. That’s because the technology and business cases for replacing humans in a wide range of jobs are arriving simultaneously, and it’s important to be able to manage that displacement. “You cross the threshold of job replacement of certain activities all sort of at once,” Gates says, citing warehouse work and driving as some of the job categories that in the next 20 years will have robots doing them.

AVC, The Robot Tax And Basic Income:

In my work to prepare for the Future of Labor conversation we had at NewCo Shift a few weeks ago, I talked to a number of experts who are studying job losses due to automation and thinking about what might be done about it. Two ideas that came up a number of times were the “robot tax” and the “basic income.”

The ideas are complimentary and one might fund the other.

At its simplest, a “robot tax” is a tax on companies that choose to use automation to replace human jobs. There are obviously many variants of this idea and to my knowledge, no country or other taxing authority has implemented a robot tax yet.

A “basic income” is the idea that everyone receives enough money from the government to pay for their basic needs; housing, food, clothing so that as automation puts people

What is interesting about these two ideas is that some of the biggest proponents of them are technology entrepreneurs and investors, the very people who are building and funding the automation technologies that have the potential to displace many jobs.

I would not characterized myself as a proponent of a robot tax or a basic income. But I find these ideas interesting and worth studying, debating, discussing, and testing at a small scale to understand their impacts. We should absolutely be doing that.

(Hat Tip: Nick Lum, Lewis Saret.)

https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2017/02/bill-gatesrobots-that-displace-workers-should-be-taxed.html

Celebrity Tax Lore, Tax | Permalink

Comments

Quote: At its simplest, a “robot tax” is a tax on companies that choose to use automation to replace human jobs.

Odd to hear Gates saying this, since Microsoft has been selling software that it claims will do that for some forty-years. Why distinguish between a robot that replaces physical labor and a computer that replaces mental labor?

Also, how do you attach a value that's to be taxed? Would that be how much that robot cost to operate? That might be small. Is the value of that robot's labor to a company? That would be easily manipulated. Do you tax the value of that labor as done by a human? Comparing the two might be hard, particularly years after a job has been taken over by robots.

I worry far more about how people, particularly men, will react when they feel they can do nothing of value to society or, more important, for their family. The old adage that "idle hands is a devil's workshop" is all too true.

--Mike Perry

Posted by: Michael W. Perry | Feb 19, 2017 2:06:00 PM

Raising the cost of deploying capital is one way. You could also make it as intrusive, cumbersome, and risky to "employ" capital as it is to employ humans. Or, you can lower the cost, intrusiveness, cumbersomeness, and riskiness of employing humans.

Posted by: MG | Feb 20, 2017 3:28:02 AM

Great analogy to software

Posted by: taxtaxtax | Feb 20, 2017 8:03:10 AM

Like MG said. We could start by taxing capital for the costs of social security and medicare instead of funding these with wage taxes.

Posted by: Capital vs. Labor | Feb 23, 2017 4:39:59 AM