Bill Gates proposes a tax on robots

[watcher1]

Robots are coming for a lot of jobs. And while at first this may seem detrimental, it’s actually a good thing.

There will still be jobs for humans (in fact, job growth has been on the rise in the U.S.), but they will just be different jobs. If we leave jobs that can be automated to the robots, we’ll free up labor so humans can do more meaningful work like caring for the elderly, teaching kids with disabilities and other jobs that require empathy—something robots lack.

This notion has been discussed time and time again, but Bill Gates has taken it further with an extra step he says will help us get “net ahead.”

“Right now, if a human worker does, you know, $50,000 worth of work in a factory, that income is taxed,” he said in a video interview with Quartz. “If a robot comes into do the same thing, you’d think we’d tax the robot at a similar level.”

With the income tax, we could fund initiatives to do good in the world.

[KitKat]

I don't trust Bill Gates. Something about him is shady.

[ChirpingGirl]

This is how Skynet really got pissed off. Being taxed to death like the rest of us.

[herschel]

Generally speaking Bill Gates is close to the bottom of my list of people I want to hear from, but I'll agree with him on this one.

As for more jobs taking care of little kids and old people, those are low-paying jobs replacing high-wage manufacturing jobs that have moved to low-pay countries, so a net loss for our middle income people in the US.

The other item on the tax policy agenda would be to impose a tiny transaction tax on every sale of stocks, bonds, derivatives and other financial instruments. Set the tax at one-tenth of one percent on every transaction, and watch Wall Street start foaming at the mouth.

[Lois]

Good idea to tax the robots for the reasons Gates listed.  Also, as more people lose their jobs because of robotic labor, we need to rethink some central precepts of capitalism.

Markets drive the capitalist economy.  Markets mean consumers.  When people lose their jobs there are less consumers.  So how do we make the economy work?

There was a class taught concerning the technology of Star Trek. Imagine if you had a replicator that could produce anything you ever wanted.  No need to buy anything anymore.  What would this mean for you and the market driven economy?

And yes, robots doing our jobs means that we could all follow our dreams and do what we would like without concern for becoming a wage slave to support ourselves.  Having been mostly unemployed since moving to Arizona, I have used my time to create jewelry.  I give most of it away for charity auctions for various causes, and I sell enough to purchase more supplies.  Imagine a world were we were free to do what we really loved?

And yet the government also needs to pay for infrastructure (schools, roads, police, etc.)  No one likes to pay taxes, but as responsible citizens we recognize the necessity of it.

[ChirpingGirl]

Good idea to tax the robots for the reasons Gates listed.  Also, as more people lose their jobs because of robotic labor, we need to rethink some central precepts of capitalism.

Markets drive the capitalist economy.  Markets mean consumers.  When people lose their jobs there are less consumers.  So how do we make the economy work?

There was a class taught concerning the technology of Star Trek. Imagine if you had a replicator that could produce anything you ever wanted.  No need to buy anything anymore.  What would this mean for you and the market driven economy?

And yes, robots doing our jobs means that we could all follow our dreams and do what we would like without concern for becoming a wage slave to support ourselves.  Having been mostly unemployed since moving to Arizona, I have used my time to create jewelry.  I give most of it away for charity auctions for various causes, and I sell enough to purchase more supplies.  Imagine a world were we were free to do what we really loved?

And yet the government also needs to pay for infrastructure (schools, roads, police, etc.)  No one likes to pay taxes, but as responsible citizens we recognize the necessity of it.

And yes, robots doing our jobs means that we could all follow our dreams and do what we would like without concern for becoming a wage slave to support ourselves.

That's how the Cylon war happened.

[Meatbot]

...other jobs that require empathy—something robots lack.

Oh, pish tosh. Robots are gonna be toys until they are married to AI's, and AI's will soon be as empathetic as my revered ol' granny was, if not moreso. AI's will be doing everything we humans do even better than we do it, shortly after their invention and/or evolution. Be sure and watch Gate's other hand. He's got a stake in this shit any way you slice it. All the dot-com billionaires do, Ellison, Bezos, Zuckerburg et all... why do you think they've all gotten so political? Or is it just me?

'bot

[Meatbot]

Sorry folks... I've probably had too much to drink tonight. Hic.

'bot

[joan1984]

"...With the income tax, we could fund initiatives to do good in the world."

Screams into her sleeve...

Income Tax is already paid on profits of any company, regardless of how those profits are achieved...

Now, if we eliminate the Income Tax on businesses, then businesses can invest those (now confiscated) monies to create greater efficiency, through paying incentive wages to increase productivity; or to eliminate items that are a drag on efficiency, such as Unions and all their arbitrary rules against how company Management may seek efficiency.

Without the complex Union rules, and constant trip wires on efficiency, such as with investing instead of in premium wages, in robotics for efficient repetitive tasks, the investors in a company may achieve a better return on their money, which is the goal of any company.

Today, the ability of human workers exceeds that of Robots, for the cost of wages, compared to the cost of purchasing, maintaining, and adapting to the nature of robotics.  As complications are imposed by employment of humans, the gap between cost benefit of Robotics and cost of dealing with humans narrows.

Robots do not earn Income, and have no use for Income, being robots, working 24/7 without need for 'breaks' other than to be lubricated and have repairs to parts at given times, hopefully scheduled maintenance, hopefully by mostly other robots... humans will simply price themselves out of the equation in many situations, and have then to seek employment where their talents are valued.

Fast Food is an area that is prime for robotics, not so much to prepare the food as to take the orders... no attitude, no language barriers, fewer 'typical' human errors in the process. Witness the efficiency of many places with ordering Kiosk devices, for Movie Theater Tickets, Fast Food ordering, it just solves so many problems for any employer, while giving efficiency to the consumer. 

Cost, versus Cost, very simple to calculate. Different hassles, no doubt, but this is where it is headed, largely due to the hassles being touted, and imposed by 'organizers' of the humans for whatever purposes.

[watcher1]

Robots do not earn Income, and have no use for Income, being robots, working 24/7 without need for 'breaks' other than to be lubricated and have repairs to parts at given times, hopefully scheduled maintenance, hopefully by mostly other robots... humans will simply price themselves out of the equation in many situations, and have then to seek employment where their talents are valued.

Robots do earn income for the owners of them. What Gates proposes is nothing new but it is an interesting way to maybe smooth the transition of those in jobs being replaced by robots. Where a human is paid a wage and is taxed on that wage, he or she uses the money not taxed to pay a mortgage or a loan on a car and buy food and clothing, thus putting the money they have earned back into the economy, maybe saving or even creating other jobs that support those industries, robots do none of this. Maybe taxing robots at a rate that takes into account what a human does with their money may give people who think robots are the answer, second thoughts.

[Katiebee]

Eliminate jobs with robots and you mandate universal assured income for all who cannot find a job. After all, the company's who manufacture things need enough people with money to demand those things and pay for them.

Without the demand those companies go away, and the CEOs are left without income and must go into the dole.

The law of unintended consequences applies to economics as well.

[joan1984]

I am not suggesting there is no societal impact, just saying the company goal is to produce profit for it's investors, stock holders, etc.  That is the reason a company exists, and the existing of businesses, companies, is valued by society for many reasons, not the least of which is the positive impact on community a sound company provides, by direct impact or by indirect impact.

The cost to employ one person involves the wages that person earns, and many other costs paid for by the employer, that 'business' that has a goal of making a profit for it's owners and investors. Many persons employed means many costs for the employer, all of which are measured against productivity of manufacturing a product, the sale value of which eventually determines the transactions from which profits occur.  Of course, the net cost versus net price at wholesale is the proper equation, with or without shipping costs, etc.

How to manufacture other than with people, which would simplify any business in many ways, has costs, and how many 'widgets' one can possibly sell to the market, sets many of the limits, both positive and negative, for any company.

Investment in employees as a way to raise productivity, and thus reduce the ed product cost, relative to productivity, and result in a positive profit result, the goal, is a consideration for every employer... piece rate, premium hourly rate, and various other schemes are used to this end, and productive, skilled, and valued employees must be retained by any employer.

Unskilled employees, are another thing... some are necessary, and the training of those persons is the trade off a company makes... at some point, their skill makes them worth more in the marketplace, but perhaps not to their current employer, who really only required a unskilled worker at minimum, with reliability being valued as each person is levered for retention, promotion and so forth. There becomes a turnover rate for which higher wages for retention is a loss, from the standpoint of the employer.

It is these skills the employer is eager to mechanize, and does mechanize, maybe beginning with a person, to move product from space A to space B, at first, later replaced by a conveyor, or skate wheel, maybe with an assisting 'mechanical arm' to assist in that task.  At that point, the "person" is redundant to the task, and must sink or swim within the employers 'needs'.

The robot is simply an extension of the 'skate wheel' concept, and the cost to build and utilize, maintain, is weighed against the alternate cost of a person, and all that brings with it (about 1/3 of the cost of having a person employed is the wages paid to that employee, on which the employee pays 'income taxes').

The 2/3 cost beyond wages paid to the employee is where the employer seeks redress, via reduction of the workforce necessary to meet production needs, the need being to make as many widgets as the market will allow one to sell.

The robot is simply a device, and if it's capability is equal to that of a person, not of all the persons for some of the persons who may do a task today, it is measured then by the cost to implement tasks with a robot, which must offset the "Wages x3" cost of keeping a person on the payroll.

It is a pretty simple equation, and can be impacted as well by the "hassle" factor for Management of the company, whether the hassle is employee retention, or upkeep of the robots.  Does one need two robots, for instance, for the time Robot One is due for maintenance... 

People may be simpler to attain, say to take the place of a person who cannot be there that day for the particular task... temp agency comes to mind, or cross training of a workforce... provided there are not Union rules binding management to less than ideal utilization of the employees available.

Complicating 'progress' by taxing specific machines, in order to slow business efficiency, and therefore profits from the business investors, has its own costs.

Robots do not earn Income, and have no use for Income, being robots, working 24/7 without need for 'breaks' other than to be lubricated and have repairs to parts at given times, hopefully scheduled maintenance, hopefully by mostly other robots... humans will simply price themselves out of the equation in many situations, and have then to seek employment where their talents are valued.

Robots do earn income for the owners of them. What Gates proposes is nothing new but it is an interesting way to maybe smooth the transition of those in jobs being replaced by robots. Where a human is paid a wage and is taxed on that wage, he or she uses the money not taxed to pay a mortgage or a loan on a car and buy food and clothing, thus putting the money they have earned back into the economy, maybe saving or even creating other jobs that support those industries, robots do none of this. Maybe taxing robots at a rate that takes into account what a human does with their money may give people who think robots are the answer, second thoughts.

[Katiebee]

The unintended consequence of putting most people out of work is that the manufactures market dries up. Short-range goals like decreasing manufacturing costs by employing less people isn't necessarily the best route, when your own employees are part of your own market.

[Elizabeth]

"In The Year 2525".....If man is still alive, if woman can survive ........
 

Love,
Liz

[Meatbot]

"In The Year 2525".....If man is still alive, if woman can survive ........
 

Love,
Liz

Zager & Evans. Woo. How strange that robots weren't mentioned directly in that song... "Some machine doin' that for you" is as close as it gets. God is mentioned twice but robots/machines only once. Interesting.

'bot

[watcher1]

The unintended consequence of putting most people out of work is that the manufactures market dries up. Short-range goals like decreasing manufacturing costs by employing less people isn't necessarily the best route, when your own employees are part of your own market.

Less people working, less people having money to spend. Less tax dollars. Less spending, more cutbacks until eventually companies close. More unemployment and strain on social services.  Vicious cycle.

[Katiebee]

The cost of doing business is having people work for you.