[Zagadka]

Bill Gates: If a robot takes a human job, it should be taxed

Bill Gates_1487396562883_8541054_ver1.0.jpg (16.14 KiB) Viewed 706 times

If a robot replaces a human's job, it should be taxed at a similar level to what the human worker was, according to Bill Gates.
In a recent interview with Quartz, the co-founder of Microsoft Corp. said if the business world wants to replace human labor, there should be some repercussions.

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

Gates told Quartz that the business world wants to continue to make all the goods and services we have today, but free up human-labor, which may in return be allocated to focus on areas that are suffering the education system and care for the elderly.

“All of those are things where human empathy and understanding are still very, very unique and we still deal with an immense shortage of people to help out there,” he said. “And so if you can take the labor to do the thing that automation replaces and both financially and training-wise and fulfillment-wise have that person go off and do these other things, you are net ahead.”

But it comes with a catch.

“You can’t just give up that income tax because that’s part of how you’ve been funding that level of human workers,” he said. “Some of it can come from the profits that are generated by the labor-saving efficiency there; some can come directly in some kind of robot tax.”

This isn't the first time Gates has addressed the replacement of human labor force with robots.

In 2014, while speaking at The American Enterprise Institute, Gates said people are unaware of how many jobs are actually in jeopardy of being replaced by automation.

"Software substitution, whether it's for drivers or waiters or nurses … it's progressing. ... Technology over time will reduce demand for jobs, particularly at the lower end of skill set. ... 20 years from now, labor demand for lots of skill sets will be substantially lower. I don’t think people have that in their mental model," Gates said, Business Insider reported.

http://www.khou.com/tech/bill-gates-if-a-robot-takes-a-human-job-it-should-be-taxed/409497509

I think it is time that we have to address this question (which has really been around for a couple of centuries, but has been more important recently). It isn't a bad idea.

[snapdragon]

how much do they get paid?

[pugsville]

The whole taxation thing needs be reworked form the ground up. behaviours that are 'bad' for society should be taxed more than 'good'. (the Quotes as acknowledgement that these things can be very much in the eye of the beholder)

Robots should be embraced, were the replace people doing bad jobs that don't value add to the workers lives. However companies that make money out of society should contribute to the society which provides their market, source of income and support network.

I'd favour a turnover tax, why should theg government/.society care if a company is profitable or not, why should companies that make money subsidise those that do not? why reward failure? If a company had huge turnover and very little profit why should it be tied less than company with modest turnover and high profit? Seems to reward being inefficient.

[One Degree]

Why not give each individual ownership of a robot? The human owner gets the income from the robot's work.

Being replaced by a robot would be considered full retirement and you get to keep the income, but the robot does the work.

[Ter]

Being replaced by a robot would be considered full retirement and you get to keep the income, but the robot does the work.

I'm sorry, my robot will not have to go out to work, I prefer to keep her at home to look after my needs (cooking, cleaning etcetera)

[AFAIK]

Institute a sales tax on corporations to minimise the loopholes and excuses they use to minimise their tax burden.

[SolarCross]

People thought that the great explosion of automation that happened in the Industrial revolution would disastrously reduce employment but it didn't it just massively ramped up productivity for a given level of employment. I suspect the same will happen with this coming wave of automation. Instead of a factory employing 50 peoples you will have 50 factories employing 1 person each to supervise 50 robots, same employment of humans but with massively ramped up productivity. Some jobs will disappear but other different jobs will be created in their place.

Even if it does greatly diminish employment levels of humans then humans will have a lot more leisure time and that will create a greater demand for entertainment. Entertainment as a broad field is not likely to attract heavily automation.

[The Sabbaticus]

International corporations already pay little to no taxes. And now the 'average Joe' is supposed to believe that these companies are going to pay the government of 'a nation' for the use of robotics and AI? Instead they'll shift their robotic workforce to the least fiscally oppressive nations and use tax loopholes for those they can't move. Which is already the current practice.

[anarchist23]

[Decky]

I'm sorry, my robot will not have to go out to work, I prefer to keep her at home to look after my needs (cooking, cleaning etcetera)

At first glance I read that as cooking, cleaning excreting. I wonder what Freud would say.

[MistyTiger]

People who are replaced by robots should be compensated for at least 6 months to a year or for as many months that they are unemployed up to when they find a new job.

Corporations using robots should pay an additional property tax, call it a mechanical property tax?