Business Insider: Bill Gates says robots that take your job should pay taxes

[Springfield]

Quote

Just because a worker isn't technically "alive" doesn't mean it can make money for nothing, according to Bill Gates.

In a recent interview with Quartz editor-in-chief Kevin Delaney, the billionaire philanthropist explained that robot labor should get taxed just like human labor - primarily as a way to maintain funding for society's many social services.

 

"You can't just give up that income tax," Gates said.

Economists and future-minded techies alike, Gates included, have been discussing the looming threat of robotic automation for several years now. An Oxford report from 2013 found robots could displace up to 50% of jobs between 2023 and 2033. And a 2015 McKinsey report concluded that today's technology could replace 45% of jobs right now.

The bulk of those lost jobs will likely come, at least initially, in telemarketing, tax preparation, and many retail service jobs. In 2016, a PwC report found drones could replace $126 billion worth of labor in infrastructure and agriculture.

If and when that happens, Gates doesn't believe the manufacturers of those robots should be able to reap the profits generated by the automated labor without paying some sort of tax. The system would be similar to how the government takes a portion of people's wages to support social programs, such as healthcare, infrastructure, and law enforcement.

 

http://nordic.businessinsider.com/bill-gates-robots-pay-taxes-2017-2/

 

More at the link...

 

 

[dfitzo53]

What this really means is that we're just 10 to 15 years away from robots complaining about taxes and their favorite sports teams. 

[China]

On 2/17/2017 at 11:20 PM, dfitzo53 said:

What this really means is that we're just 10 to 15 years away from robots complaining about taxes and their favorite sports teams. 

 

At that point don't they cease being robots and become androids?

 

 

[Destino]

But the job creators would never just replace half the workforce with robots.  Right?

[Llevron]

He is right, but this is how the Matrix started if I remember correctly. Not cool. 

[Riggo-toni]

Does this mean when dudes marry their sexbots they will have to pay the marriage penalty?

[PeterMP]

No taxation without representation.  Does that meany they'll get to vote?

[skinfan2k]

I think companies that use robots instead should have to pay a large corporate tax if thats what he means 

[zoony]

That's a great idea

[DogofWar1]

46 minutes ago, skinfan2k said:

I think companies that use robots instead should have to pay a large corporate tax if thats what he means 

I think that's basically it.  I mean, until the robots become more than assembly line tools, they're not earning money themselves, they're earning money for the company, that is, profits, which ought to be taxable.

[Springfield]

25 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

I think that's basically it.  I mean, until the robots become more than assembly line tools, they're not earning money themselves, they're earning money for the company, that is, profits, which ought to be taxable.

 

Any person who works for a company is earning money for a company.

 

The robot who does assembly line work is taking away a job from an assembly line worker.  The self check our machine is taking a job away from a cashier.  A self driving Uber is taking away a job from a taxi driver.  Computers are better travel agents than ACTUAL travel agencies.  Algorithms can perform more accurate tax and accounting services than actual CPA's can.

 

Where do you draw the line, though?

[Popeman38]

54 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

I think that's basically it.  I mean, until the robots become more than assembly line tools, they're not earning money themselves, they're earning money for the company, that is, profits, which ought to be taxable.

The profits the company makes ARE taxed. I think Gates is making an argument that companies should pay tax on the money they save by not paying employees. But those aren't "profits" unless you have two business models that run concurrently (one with employee cost and one without) and the difference is counted as profits. The company has to make the capital investment to buy the robots (and that capital was taxed as income and the purchase includes a sales tax). It's a fair point, but penalizes a company for being more productive. Do we really want to punish productivity?

[DogofWar1]

37 minutes ago, Springfield said:

Where do you draw the line, though?

I think it's ultimately going to just be not trying to calculate loss of income tax anymore, and rather, setting corporate taxes at levels necessary for whatever government is doing.  It gets too complicated otherwise.  But we're moving towards a "laborless" market, where hypothetically, fleshy humans won't work any jobs.  This is, of course, waayyyyyyy out there in the future, but the main thing is that the idea of income tax will be outdated since "people" won't have "income."

[Corcaigh]

Property tax on capital investment is one way to go with this. The data centers in Loudoun provide significant tax income to the county. In Loudoun it's known as Business Tangible Personal Property Tax.

 

Or you could just go with a gross receipt tax. Or both.

[Busch1724]

So as corporations gain the rights that people do, should robots? Interesting discussion because Gates does bring up a great point.

 

DogsofWar,

 

Good point, but some labor is very close to becoming obsolete. The financial sector is crapping their pants as computers replace financial advisers. I'm not sure that warehouse jobs will become obsolete within the next decade or two, self driven tractor trailers, etc. This will have a massive ripple effect on restaurants, shopping, etc. Taxes will have to be collected to continue with our way of life.  Sure the humanless workforce way out there, but there are sectors that are going to be seriously impacted and tax collection will have to made up somehow. 

[PeterMP]

In the end, the money is going somewhere, and I find it hard to believe it isn't taxed.  It might make sense to change our tax code to make sure we collect (and realistically we should now).

 

The company buys a computer/robot to automate some job.  They bought the computer/robot/software from somewhere.

 

Somebody/something made money off that purchase.  That should be taxed- either at the corporate level of in terms or individual incomes (somebody got paid to make the robot/computer/software and some company made money selling it).

 

The company that bought the robot is either making more money (their profits are up), they have shifted the money saved to earnings for somebody else (their CEO/board/management are making more money), or they have lowered prices (saving consumers money).

 

If they are saving consumers money, I fully expect they are doing something with it other than burning or hiding it under their mattress.  They are either buying something else (which means other companies are going to make profits, which we can tax) or investing it (and in doing so somebody else made money from the sale (and we can tax investment in come and even the buy/sale of the investment if we want)).

 

But either way the money is going to be taxed.  I can't imagine a scenario where it would be efficient to alter the tax code to tax the robot vs. adjusting the taxes that we already have in place.

 

(And anybody notice the trend of stores removing self-check outs.  I know that Acme did, and I can't get this, but it looks like they are not the only ones:

 

http://www.supermarketnews.com/store-design-construction/albertsons-pleased-it-bucks-self-checkout-trend

)

 

[twa]

I wonder what Gates would think of punitive taxes on, say, office productivity software which helped to eliminate so many inefficient office jobs.

30Posted at 5:08 pm by Stephen Green

[Busch1724]

Peter,

Sure robots and/or machines are taxed when purchased. Where this gets wonky is what about FICA, ACA, and S.S. taxes? As less and less people have jobs (which is inevitable) where do the revenue streams come from?

[PeterMP]

32 minutes ago, Busch1724 said:

Peter,

Sure robots and/or machines are taxed when purchased. Where this gets wonky is what about FICA, ACA, and S.S. taxes? As less and less people have jobs (which is inevitable) where do the revenue streams come from?

 

Why is it inevitable?  I suspect people will always find ways to spend their money and that will result in people supplying labor.

 

It is just a matter of making sure those people are paid a reasonable amount of money (put the proper importance on labor).

 

And somebody made the machines and/or robots and those people's were taxed on their income, including FICA etc.

 

I've made the point before, go back into the 1920s and tell people in the future that pretty ordinary people are going to pay other people to do their lawn and people wouldn't believe you.  Tell people that people will hire people to teach their kids how to play a sport before they are 10, and they will laugh at you.

 

But any day of the week during the spring and summer, I can drive through a pretty standard residential suburban neighborhood and see people that are being paid to get grass to grow, cut it, etc (In reality, as somebody that grew up in the country on a farm, this is still something that I have issues with wrapping my head around.  People pay people to plant grass, put in a irrigation system (for which they are paying for water for) and fertilize the grass so that the grass will grow and then they pay those same people that they've paid to get their grass to grow to come back and cut their grass after it grows and take away the grass that they cut off).  Oh and those people that are paying those people to do the manual labor to get the grass to grow and cut, then pay other people to run gyms so they can get exercise that they aren't getting by taking care of their own yard.

 

And most spring or summer evenings, I can go to the local park and there are "professional" trainers that are being paid to work with young kids on playing a sport.  I knew a pretty middle class family that was taking their 6 old to a trainer to be a softball pitcher.  My oldest is now 10, and you can really start to see who are good athletes and who are not.  I know people that don't think there kid has much of a future in professional sports that pay for their kids to see a sports trainer.

 

If I buy something, the money is going some where.  If the work is being done by a machine, the money is still ending up with a person.  That person is going to do some thing else with it and as long as they are not burning it, burying, or hiding it under a mattress, etc. some of it is going to be transferred to somebody else.  Until we start paying machines/robots salaries/incomes that they are spending on services/goods rendered by other machines/robots, I think we are going to be okay (if we have the will to make sure that labor in generally is properly awarded).

 

Look at all of the jobs that we have lost through the decades, but employment is not really our problem (unemployment is low).  How many farmers today does is take to do the work of a 100 farmers 100 years ago?  Income disparity is an issue, but that's not employment.

[balki1867]

16 hours ago, twa said:

I wonder what Gates would think of punitive taxes on, say, office productivity software which helped to eliminate so many inefficient office jobs.

30Posted at 5:08 pm by Stephen Green

 

I was thinking the same thing- my copy of MS Excel does the same work that 4 finance analysts would've done 30 years ago.  It's not a robot per se, but it's definitely a form of automation that's taken the place of humans.

[Busch1724]

Peter,

I just see a point in a couple decades where the workforce is pretty much just service based. The percentage of people that actually work will be higher because laborer jobs just won't be there. As automation expands, the need for humans is less and less.

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, Busch1724 said:

Peter,

I just see a point in a couple decades where the workforce is pretty much just service based. The percentage of people that actually work will be higher because laborer jobs just won't be there. As automation expands, the need for humans is less and less.

 

I do think the economy is going to become much service based (though this does depend on how you define service.  Is breaking a horse a service job?).  But to me service jobs are labor.

 

I just think as long as people have money to spend, they are going to spend it on something and that something is going to result in the labor of some people.

 

Is the "need" for human labor less, yes, but lot's of people spend lot's of money on things they don't need.

 

I just don't see the point where people will stop wanting things and if they are spending less money on other things, they will find other things to spend their money on.

 

I don't need an accountant any more because a computer is doing it for me.  Great!  What can I spend the money that I've saved on (where the person that programmed the computer and built the things are getting paid, but presumably it has gone to automation because it is cheaper/better so more effeceint for me.)?

[mcsluggo]

see... i used to count on republicans to argue the benefits to society from businesses becoming more efficient and more profitable.  But now that Republicans have just become morally conservative populists...  i miss the grand old party.  

 

The pro business "Oldsmobile Republicans" has been replaced a populist party that only cares about handouts and being protected from abortions, gheys, and foreigners....    its bad for the damned country. 

 

more efficient production CREATES prosperity.   Every single advance that has ever been made, has reduced the labor required to make ****.   and that reduction allows that same amount of labor to make more ****, for all of us to have... including the labor.   We could all have jobs shoveling our own poop onto fields (with our bare hands) and pushing seeds into the ground with our fingers, and harvesting crops and beating them into meal with rocks... or we could get more efficient, so that SOME laborers are free to make porn and cappuccino for the rest of us.  

 

Automation sucks for the person that was automated (until they get a new job)... just like technological progress sucked for the pony express rider, and the buggy whip manufacturer and the pre-internet chick that got fed dollars to sit naked in a glass booth... but that labor savings is not just necessary for a better life for all of us..it is THE VERY DEFINITION of the better life.  You need to free up labor to make more ****.  period... we as a society just need to do a better job of recognizing that while we are all better off in the aggregate from this... we need to do a better job of making sure that the benefits are shared by all of society... INCLUDING the poor schlobs that used to make buggy whips      

[PeterMP]

I guess if you are concerned about the loss of jobs with automation, my question comes back to what do you think people are going to do with their money (presumably automation is happening because somebody somewhere is saving money)?

[Busch1724]

5 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

I guess if you are concerned about the loss of jobs with automation, my question comes back to what do you think people are going to do with their money (presumably automation is happening because somebody somewhere is saving money)?

 

I'm not concerned about automation as much as I am about education in general shifting to meet the needs of students. I am a teacher and soon to be principal, and recognize that too often, education is slow to adapt and change. One of the primary reasons we ended up with this president is the frustration of jobs, perception of the economy, and several other factors that are related to a lack of education.

So education and job training skills are going to be vital. I'm not currently seeing a thirst to acquire more education my many of my peers or their children. Sure many have/had gone to college but once they are done with college, they feel that is all they have to do. Those thought processes need to change.