21–30 of 80 posts
This is a very smart idea. Taxes' primary function is to finance what can only be provided by government in our society. With the advent of robots as a major part of our working force taxing them is a way to get money for the public good. Why shouldn't they be taxed? The alternative is for the robots and their owners to get a free ride while still using society's infrastructure. Taxing robots is probably not enough.…
This is a very smart idea. Taxes' primary function is to finance what can only be provided by government in our society. With the advent of robots as a major part of our working force taxing them is a way to get money for the public good. Why shouldn't they be taxed? The alternative is for the robots and their owners to get a free ride while still using society's infrastructure. Taxing robots is probably not enough.…
This is a very smart idea. Taxes' primary function is to finance what can only be provided by government in our society. With the advent of robots as a major part of our working force taxing them is a way to get money for the public good. Why shouldn't they be taxed? The alternative is for the robots and their owners to get a free ride while still using society's infrastructure. Taxing robots is probably not enough.…
The owners already pay taxes though. Why should they pay additional tax for using robots?
http://michael-hudson.com/2015/09/killing-the-host-the-book/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mH8FWrbzxEs
Almost everything Mr. Gatez does is wrong and became a big problem for humanity - Windows, his investments in GMOs and atomic power and US pharma companies that are blackmailing poor countries - with this piece the most important thing he does: justify tax on work as something good. Sure, a few percent of taxes are used for public wealth (good thing!), but the biggest part nowadays is extracted and transformed into profits for rich individuals and companies.
As democratic control of how taxes are used seems to be of no interest for the public, the system that was built for more participation is transformed into a profit-extracting machine for international criminal organizations.
But maybe the robot tax idea can trigger a general discussion about what should be taxed and what not. Please add the book by Mr. Hudson to these discussions.
How come a robot pay taxes? It will be paid by the creators or the owner of that robot Which means that owner/creator will pay double taxes. Including his own and his robot's taxes.
That's exactly the point, those taxes will help cover all the people now unemployed by those robots.
Seriously? We all know who Bill Gates is, but let's just examine this proposition as if someone else said it, maybe someone anonymous or who lacks prestige. We would tell them that sewing machine aren't taxed; farm equipment isn't taxed; street sweepers aren't taxed. We would tell them that productivity through technological innovation is an essential ingredient to our economy and that human needs are ever-evolving,…
new jobs will be created just like they always have been I think that hypothesis is what Bill Gates is questioning. The rate of change is far quicker than anything we've seen before, so using historical examples of how jobs have been created when technology puts people out of work as evidence of what will happen is grossly flawed. There's a possibility that we won't invent new jobs in time. We should think about what…
Middle managers wont get replaced by robots that prepare powerpoints and know how to compliment their boss. They'll be replaced by algorithms that eliminate any need for their role. Is a 3d printer a robot? Normally I'm impressed by Bill Gates' thinking, but this seems half-baked.
I would submit that that has more to do with the summarizing/simplifying/editing done by Quartz to represent Gates' views on the topic in 1:43.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's exactly the point, those taxes will help cover all the people now unemployed by those robots.
Should the same have been done when calculators made human calculators unemployed?
Seriously? We all know who Bill Gates is, but let's just examine this proposition as if someone else said it, maybe someone anonymous or who lacks prestige. We would tell them that sewing machine aren't taxed; farm equipment isn't taxed; street sweepers aren't taxed. We would tell them that productivity through technological innovation is an essential ingredient to our economy and that human needs are ever-evolving,…
new jobs will be created just like they always have been I think that hypothesis is what Bill Gates is questioning. The rate of change is far quicker than anything we've seen before, so using historical examples of how jobs have been created when technology puts people out of work as evidence of what will happen is grossly flawed. There's a possibility that we won't invent new jobs in time. We should think about what…
Free market economy doesn't think ahead, that's both it's strength and weakness. Government tries to think ahead. A taxation on robots might be a way to ease the road to the future _if_ the market doesn't invent jobs in the rate robots/automation in general takes them away. If you are a person with faith in the market the argument is easy, it's non-marketist to think ahead and the market will invent jobs because supply/demand.
My take on this that for the market to be able to invent those jobs the economy has to become virtual. So the solution from the Government should be heavy subsidies to VR equipment, give the extremely poor extremely powerful gaming rigs and install tubes with free food(ish) to everyone. Then the market will survive, matrix style.