Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bill Gates Wants to Tax Robots

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 80 posts

Re: Bill Gates Wants to Tax Robots

#41

Post by coralreef »

witty_username wrote: post #31
coralreef wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends how many human calculators lost their jobs. If it was a big part of society, then it may have been a good idea.

Why? In the long-term disruptions and changes in jobs are part of the changes in the world. These people are unemployed temporarily and will lose some wages in the short-term but in the long term they will benefit from technological changes. Taxing innovation is bad. If you want to achieve social welfare goals why not use NIT (negative income tax) or less preferably, UBI (universal basic income)? Why should people us…

If you want to achieve social welfare goals why not use NIT (negative income tax) or less preferably, UBI (universal basic income)?

The money for this would have to come from somewhere. Thus it makes sense to tax the biggest beneficiaries, the capital owners who permanently replaced workers with machines. They're paying because they're gaining the most.

The world population is something like ~7.5 billion people. Everyone needs some form of meaningful employment and income.

Re: Bill Gates Wants to Tax Robots

#42

Post by xellisx »

witty_username wrote: post #23
WheelsAtLarge wrote: post #18

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.…

By that logic, we should tax cars, computers, calculators. The owners already pay taxes though. Why should they pay additional tax for using robots?

The owner pay taxes for all sorts of things, but the companies used robots to cut out human interaction, which means lower money paid out for those workers. Of course laws let the companies "export" the jobs to other countries for lower wages since the 70's.

Re: Bill Gates Wants to Tax Robots

#43

Post by dwaltrip »

witty_username wrote: post #23
WheelsAtLarge wrote: post #18

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.…

By that logic, we should tax cars, computers, calculators. The owners already pay taxes though. Why should they pay additional tax for using robots?

Because it's a new paradigm of value creation that has broad ramifications across all of society, so the tax structure should reflect that.

Tax policy shouldn't be static, it should keep pace with the society and culture it serves as they change over time.

Re: Bill Gates Wants to Tax Robots

#44

Post by witty_username »

coralreef wrote: post #41
witty_username wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? In the long-term disruptions and changes in jobs are part of the changes in the world. These people are unemployed temporarily and will lose some wages in the short-term but in the long term they will benefit from technological changes. Taxing innovation is bad. If you want to achieve social welfare goals why not use NIT (negative income tax) or less preferably, UBI (universal basic income)? Why should people us…

If you want to achieve social welfare goals why not use NIT (negative income tax) or less preferably, UBI (universal basic income)? The money for this would have to come from somewhere. Thus it makes sense to tax the biggest beneficiaries, the capital owners who permanently replaced workers with machines. They're paying because they're gaining the most. The world population is something like ~7.5 billion people. Ever…

> The money for this would have to come from somewhere. Thus it makes sense to tax the biggest beneficiaries, the capital owners who permanently replaced workers with machines. They're paying because they're gaining the most.

How do you know they're gaining the most? That depends on the relative elasticities.

Economics is not zero-sum. Even the unemployed people will gain in the long-term as the gains trickle down and/or they gain from other technological advances.

> The world population is something like ~7.5 billion people. Everyone needs some form of meaningful employment and income.

See lump of labor fallacy. There are always jobs, but people don't take them because the wages are too low.

Re: Bill Gates Wants to Tax Robots

#45

Post by witty_username »

dwaltrip wrote: post #43
witty_username wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By that logic, we should tax cars, computers, calculators. The owners already pay taxes though. Why should they pay additional tax for using robots?

Because it's a new paradigm of value creation that has broad ramifications across all of society, so the tax structure should reflect that. Tax policy shouldn't be static, it should keep pace with the society and culture it serves as they change over time.

How does that not apply to cars, planes, calculators, computers, and the internet?

I'm pretty sure I heard similar stuff regarding the internet.

Re: Bill Gates Wants to Tax Robots

#46

Post by witty_username »

xellisx wrote: post #42
witty_username wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By that logic, we should tax cars, computers, calculators. The owners already pay taxes though. Why should they pay additional tax for using robots?

The owner pay taxes for all sorts of things, but the companies used robots to cut out human interaction, which means lower money paid out for those workers. Of course laws let the companies "export" the jobs to other countries for lower wages since the 70's.

Some people lose temporarily and others win. What is wrong with that? That inequality is how capitalism works.

> Of course laws let the companies "export" the jobs to other countries for lower wages since the 70's.

That's wonderful. Poor people's wages are rising and global inequality is decreasing thanks to that.

Re: Bill Gates Wants to Tax Robots

#47

Post by dwaltrip »

witty_username wrote: post #45
dwaltrip wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's a new paradigm of value creation that has broad ramifications across all of society, so the tax structure should reflect that. Tax policy shouldn't be static, it should keep pace with the society and culture it serves as they change over time.

How does that not apply to cars, planes, calculators, computers, and the internet? I'm pretty sure I heard similar stuff regarding the internet.

Well for one, computers and the internet are a huge part of automation. This is a long-term, multi-faceted trend.

Re: Bill Gates Wants to Tax Robots

#48

Post by coralreef »

witty_username wrote: post #44
coralreef wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to achieve social welfare goals why not use NIT (negative income tax) or less preferably, UBI (universal basic income)? The money for this would have to come from somewhere. Thus it makes sense to tax the biggest beneficiaries, the capital owners who permanently replaced workers with machines. They're paying because they're gaining the most. The world population is something like ~7.5 billion people. Ever…

> The money for this would have to come from somewhere. Thus it makes sense to tax the biggest beneficiaries, the capital owners who permanently replaced workers with machines. They're paying because they're gaining the most. How do you know they're gaining the most? That depends on the relative elasticities. Economics is not zero-sum. Even the unemployed people will gain in the long-term as the gains trickle down an…

How do you know they're gaining the most?

Because profits go up, but wages are stagnant. Corporations are increasingly cutting benefits, pensions, and treating employees as contractors and outsourcing. Millennials today are poorer than their parents were. This is the age we live in, profit maximization over everything else. The rich got richer, but the middle class and poor haven't seen any of these gains. Why should anyone believe that anything would change otherwise?

Even the unemployed people will gain in the long-term as the gains trickle down and/or they gain from other technological advances.

In the short run, depending on how rapidly automation occurs, this class of people will suffer greatly. They will need to be retrained and educated. It may be worthwhile for the state to invest in its people.

There are always jobs, but people don't take them because the wages are too low.

If the only jobs available are low paying with terrible conditions, then that's not a society you want to live in.

Its convenient to hide behind the economic theories, making sure the graphs line up so we don't see any deadweight losses or inefficiencies. But the practicality of it is always a shade darker. People cheat, monopolies are held. Gains don't always trickle down.

Post reply on HN