What's new
What's new

Should robots pay taxes?

That's rich, coming from Bill Gates, after Microsoft using every trick in the book to avoid taxes, stifle competition, and maximize profit. Yet another case of "I got mine, now you can't do that". Maybe they should tax MS for each server/storage device they use, since ostensibly it's increasing productivity (at least that's what they say). Bill would probably have a different line if MS was heavily in the manufacturing, versus software and services business. (Now, I don't have any particular gripe against MS, they've actually provided a lot of productivity over the years for what's mostly reasonable cost).

But, in the end, if it's productive, the gov's will find a way to tax it... "If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it"
To carry it a step further, why not tax all computers, scanners, copiers, etc. Think how many file clerks and typing pools were eliminated by this technology.
 
I know it is unpopular, but wtf... still need someone to program the robot, and maintain the robot, etc... so does the guvner get to collect taxes twice on the robot and its "human handler"?
 
Two observations:

1. Money is a human construction and is used to reflect human claims on other humans through the economy as a whole. It is therefore nonsensical to claim that any non-human entity can pay taxes. It's utterly impractical to demand tax payments from any entity that doesn't also receive payments.

2. If we evolve to a society where say 10% of the population owns 100% of the means of production of all goods and services, well, then, there has to be some resolution of what to do with the other 90%. Give them money (from taxes or just printed) is one common leftist fantasy. Let them all starve is probably closer to the grim reality of human history. But mechanisms like new taxes that are somehow understandable from our current point of view are just silly.
 
Two observations:

1. Money is a human construction and is used to reflect human claims on other humans through the economy as a whole. It is therefore nonsensical to claim that any non-human entity can pay taxes. It's utterly impractical to demand tax payments from any entity that doesn't also receive payments.

2. If we evolve to a society where say 10% of the population owns 100% of the means of production of all goods and services, well, then, there has to be some resolution of what to do with the other 90%. Give them money (from taxes or just printed) is one common leftist fantasy. Let them all starve is probably closer to the grim reality of human history. But mechanisms like new taxes that are somehow understandable from our current point of view are just silly.


1. I kinda think that taxing "work" is kinda nuts. I think that financial transactions are the only things that are truly taxable, that is why income and Realestate taxes are not intuitive.

2. Society as we know is in trouble. The production capabilities are already concentrated into very few hands. And we have too many unemployable people.

Since it is not far fetched that factories will have very few humans, it is time that our representatives look at other ways to assure sources of taxation to keep the government functional. Also it is becoming clearer, that we will get to the point where production and future prosperity will require minimal human input. then what? :willy_nilly:

dee
;-D
 
Society as we know is in trouble. The production capabilities are already concentrated into very few hands

Speaking for my personally owned means of production, I worked hard to aquire it.

And we have too many unemployable people.

If you meant unemployed, well, I'm doing my best to employ them. Unemployable is their problem. And please don't tell me it's my problem, I didn't make them play Grand Theft Auto instead of reading.
 
I'd be happy enough to just see profitable companies -- especially those multinationals playing whack a mole with local tax jurisdictions -- pay their fair share of US taxes.

Right now everyone able to afford their own politicians has pretty much bought their own loopholes. Some even brag about it . . .

Robots? Pretty sure they're an investment tax credit. 100% off your Federal Taxes in the first year if you time it right. Yep, free robots. Maybe even a profit before you so much as wire 'em up if you put them in a new plant with some sweetheart deal to also avoid local income and property taxes.

To Mebfab's point, some investment firms are spending millions of dollars to look at the positions of ordinary schmucks and execute trades ahead of them. It's a form of insider trading that, so far, has gone both untaxed and unpunished. Spam would pretty much disappear if we charged a penny a message and put it towards Internet infrastructure. Automated insider trader would, likewise, pretty much disappear if we put a couple pennies tax on each made-by-computers trade.
 
If you meant unemployed, well, I'm doing my best to employ them. Unemployable is their problem. And please don't tell me it's my problem, I didn't make them play Grand Theft Auto instead of reading.

yes i mean unemployable. Lacking skills that are needed today. Remember there are 250K unfilled manufacturing jobs. Obviously there are no people who can fill them either because of lack of skills, or because they do not pay enough to maintain sustainable living standards. Contrast that with the numbers out of the labor force. That is a real number although nowhere as high as Frump claims. And you know what the number will rise very quickly. When we get self driving cars it will add 10 to 20 million almost over night to that number.


dee
;-D
 
Two observations:

1. Money is a human construction and is used to reflect human claims on other humans through the economy as a whole. It is therefore nonsensical to claim that any non-human entity can pay taxes. It's utterly impractical to demand tax payments from any entity that doesn't also receive payments.

2. If we evolve to a society where say 10% of the population owns 100% of the means of production of all goods and services, well, then, there has to be some resolution of what to do with the other 90%. Give them money (from taxes or just printed) is one common leftist fantasy. Let them all starve is probably closer to the grim reality of human history. But mechanisms like new taxes that are somehow understandable from our current point of view are just silly.
A few thoughts about your post....

We are not really talking about holding a non-sentient, non- reactive apparatus responsible for the payment of taxes, are we? No, what us proposed is simply taxation of capital equipment that returns value to the corporation in an amount exceeding it's cost.

In the case of robots, the corporation profits by way of dramatically increased productivity AND through the elimination of the economic burden associated with human workers who are made redundant. Yes?

If a given robot can mine more coal than seventy-five human coal miners (there is in fact a robot that will do just that), thousands of workers will be sacked with the introduction of a relative few robots. True?

If thousands are thus made redundant, what kinds of undesirable consequences are precipitated?

Firstly, taxing authorities lose revenue because those who lose their jobs are not obliged to pay taxes on non-existent earned income.

Second, the productive abilities if thousands will lie fallow.

Third, homes will be foreclosed, rents will go unpaid, children will go hungry and be forced to wear other people's shoes. Families will break-up, some will grow despondent and commit suicide.

Fourth, cars will be reposessed, new purchases will be curtailed, people will suffer greatly.

Local economies, especially in rural America will tip over.

These unfortunate events are but a few of the problems that will inevitably result when robots replace men.

What to do? The Capitalist will see no reason to do anything at all. He will celebrate the acquisition of ever greater wealth and negotiate the purchase of more robots. He will be supported in this by so-called "conservatives" and right-leaning political functionaries. He will buy politicians outright to pass laws that protect his enormous wealth.

There is a better way: Tax the robots and use the revenue to retrain workers for jobs that actually exist in the US economy.

Many displaced workers -coal miners for instance-live in very rural areas where there is little opportunity for them to obtain schooling to qualify for the kinds of new jobs that will be created in our technology driven economy. Tax revenue from robots can serve as an important revenue stream to fund job training and re-training. In this way, many of the negative consequences already noted may be avoided.

Squire

Sent Using Tapatalk - Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, Tahlequah OK
 
Stupid. Just like any other tool, if it is being used to make money, tax the income. If the robot isn't making the company money, there was no money to pay a person anyway.

Besides, where do you draw the line at robot? A CNC? An automated database that spits out more accurate medical diagnoses? A handheld calculator? We used to have lots of jobs for human computers, filling in actuarial tables and whatnot...
 
Stupid. Just like any other tool, if it is being used to make money, tax the income. If the robot isn't making the company money, there was no money to pay a person anyway.

Besides, where do you draw the line at robot? A CNC? An automated database that spits out more accurate medical diagnoses? A handheld calculator? We used to have lots of jobs for human computers, filling in actuarial tables and whatnot...
Robots are not "like any other tool". They are unique machines that have human characteristics and may be programmed by a computer. Moreover, they are able to replicate human actions.

It's not all that difficult to identify robots for taxation purposes.

You hold that corporate income should be taxed. I agree. Taxation of robots would be in addition to other taxes. This because society has need of mitigating the economic and social harm they cause and which I spelled out earlier.

Squire

Sent Using Tapatalk - Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, Tahlequah OK
 
Robots are not "like any other tool". They are unique machines that have human characteristics and may be programmed by a computer. Moreover, they are able to replicate human actions.

It's not all that difficult to identify robots for taxation purposes.

Let's say you have five identical CNC lathes.

Lathe #1 has a barfeeder and pneumatic parts catcher.

Lathe #2 has a gantry loader.

Lathe #3 is being tended by a 6-axis robot.

Lathes #4 and #5 are also being tended by a 6-axis robot, shared between the two.

All five lathes are making the exact same parts and are running unattended. How many taxable robots are in this hypothetical picture?
 
So what is the definition of a robot?

Is a machine that sorts apples by size a robot?

Or are we talking about taxing things that take away jobs?

Back in the day I'd imagine we went through a lot more hammers when they
were made from shitty cast iron.. Do we tax the use of advanced metals that
take away jobs?

Do we tax cranes?? Each crane takes away tons of jobs... Look what the Egyptians did.

We can tax e-mails since they put postal workers out of jobs.

Rubber tires put the wagon wheel manufacturers out of business, can we add a tax to those.
Can we then tax the wagon wheel manufactuers since they are putting the shoe makers out of
business. Can we then tax the shoe maker for putting the podiatrist out of business? And
then can we double tax the podiatrist for putting the wheel chair makers out of business.
Then on and on and on...

Can we add a tax to electricity for putting water wheel manufacturers out of business and line
shaft repair men. And light bulbs, they put the candle makers out of business.. I guess
we would have to tax petroleum for taking away whaling jobs?
 
I think Bill Gates is smart enough to know that taxing robots is a near impossibility and he may just be trying to provoke thought on the subject. This thread has already made it clear that merely identifying a robot is hard enough, much less quantifying a robot's taxability and enforcing the tax.

In any case, factory automation and McDonald's robots are a snooze compared to the the next big thing: self-driving cars. The amount of US jobs that will be displaced by autonomous vehicles in the next 10-20 years will be in the millions. Hard to imagine these not qualifying as "robots". Funny thing is, Microsoft will be fighting tooth and nail with Google and Apple to secure marketshare in vehicle-based operating systems. Hope they're ready to cough up that tax.

Citizen: "But my car shouldn't qualify as a taxable robot because it's a personal vehicle and I'm not making any money off of it."
IRS: "Sorry, your car is being employed by you as a chauffeur and a cargo delivery robot. You're going to have to pay that tax."
Citizen: "Shit."

Then there's the drones. Maybe Amazon's 10 million delivery drones will all return to the mothership (like in the movie, Independence Day) and be taxed as one big robot. Loopholes, ya know.
 








 
Back
Top