Bill Gates on Robot Future: Robots should pay your income tax

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Ghost

Chili Con Carnage!
Interesting little video that's trending on Reddit at the moment, Bill Gates says that if a Robot replaces a $50k a year worker, the company should pay the income tax that the worker would have paid on that income.

The theory being that releasing humans to do compassionate work that's massively understaffed at the moment needs to be paid for by the government, so you need to make up the tax revenues.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nccryZOcrUg

I think it's an interesting idea, massive job losses are coming by way of automation but there is still plenty of work out there that robots can't do, so long as there's some way to pay people to do it.
 
It's an interesting thought. But it's also something that would be hard to quantify.

If a robot were to do the productivity of 3 workers, how does that work?
If an entire production line is streamlined to cut 75% of workers, that still seems like a hefty tax burden that will only deter automation.
 
Don't tax the robot per say. That just makes this complicated.

Just tax the business as a whole at a high rate. Then use that to fuel basic income and healthcare for all.
 
Bill Gates says that if a Robot replaces a $50k a year worker, the company should pay the income tax that the worker would have paid on that income.
Click to expand...

How about Silicon Valley companies pay the income tax that a worker whose job was outsourced to a low-wage country would have paid on that income.

We could start there.
 
I've been talking with my Dad a lot about universal basic income lately. He really doesn't get it, mostly from a "well there's no money to do that" perspective. I keep telling him, if robots end up doing all the work, their needs to be taxes on the work they do. Short term I guess this could help somewhat but in the long run I'm not sure how much just replacing a workers income tax solves if the tax rate isn't increased. All that does is prop up the government. In the nordic countries this is probably fine (and others in Europe I just don't know enough about social services provided by every country) but in the US what happens? No income leads to no viable means of buying anything. Can't afford rent, health insurance, food, anything. Then the robots will have no reason to be working and that's the end of the economy... of course they could just continue on and the government could step in to set up distribution of goods to everyone. That is massive societal change that is very hard to see happening any time soon in the US.

shadowsdarknes said:
It's an interesting thought. But it's also something that would be hard to quantify.

If a robot were to do the productivity of 3 workers, how does that work?
If an entire production line is streamlined to cut 75% of workers, that still seems like a hefty tax burden that will only deter automation.
Click to expand...

This is the other option. Make the tax on automation unbearable from a business standpoint so humans can't be feasibly replaced. Although, how do we prevent competition from other countries? Protectionism?
 
Fine Ham Abounds said:
Isn't this more or less along the same line as how basic income would have to work?
Click to expand...

Sort of. Like many issues it is about framing or labeling it. If you say basic income that sounds like a handout to people who are working and perceived as safe but if people are trained and given other jobs that are funded by "Robot" tax it is an easier sell.

Spiral Insanity said:
Why can't we just tax big businesses like we tax small businesses. To start with.
Click to expand...

Because if a small business goes under it impacts a smaller number of people than having a large corporation leave the state or the county. Also, fundamentally big businesses have more clout and better lobbying power.
 
Microsoft could start by not pretending to be operating out of places like Puerto Rico in order to dodge paying taxes.
 
People have already been replaced by machines and automation and this hasn't happened. I doubt we'll ever have literal humanoid robots taking jobs from people.
 
I mean, this is the whole issue with capital gains not being taxed nearly enough relative to paid labor. You don't need anything complicated, just charge people way more for income based off owning stuff.
 
Kayhan said:
Microsoft could start by not pretending to be operating out of places like Puerto Rico in order to dodge paying taxes.
Click to expand...

If they do that they will be at a disadvantage against other companies who might decide not to. Instead the loophole should be closed, therefore forcing MS and every other company to pay taxes.
 
Kayhan said:
Microsoft could start by not pretending to be operating out of places like Puerto Rico in order to dodge paying taxes.
Click to expand...

That would be a disservice to their shareholders, who are the owners of the company.

You can't expect publicly owned companies in a Capitalist environment to act responsibly or honor any sort of social contract. You HAVE to legislate it.

the fault is with the government, not microsoft.
 
That would never work. Man is too greedy and that robot's "pay" and the taxes it relieves for humans would become the new base.

A new tax would be made on top of the robot's own tax.
 
This makes zero sense at all. Most of the automation jobs which replace real operators is done by automation lines (PLC stuff etc), and not really the robots itself. This is already being done since the 60/70's, yet these companies never had to pay 'automation taxes'. Same for the ICT revolution, thousand's of people have been layed off/are being layed off due to more efficient ICT programs (i.e. a simple database or a user friendly program - technology from the 80's) which replaces a ton of people doing basically useless spreadsheet paper work. Yet companies never had to pay an ICT tax?
I really don't know why people are afraid of the 'new robot revolution', because most people being layed off right now due to 'automation/robotics' are being layed off due to basically 20/30 year old technology.
 
Kill3r7 said:
Sort of. Like many issues it is about framing or labeling it. If you say basic income that sounds like a handout to people who are working and perceived as safe but if people are trained and given other jobs that are funded by "Robot" tax it is an easier sell.



Because if a small business goes under it impacts a smaller number of people than having a large corporation leave the state or the county.Also, fundamentally big businesses have more clout and better lobbying power.
Click to expand...

Bolded is the why they don't pay more taxes not why they shouldn't have too.
 
People fundamentally misunderstand what is happening. Go watch Frontline's "Betting on Trump: coal" or "Betting on Trump: Water".

Those people do NOT want to go to school to learn a new job; they want a life time job, the same one their parents had or that everyone else in town has. Going to school makes them feel dumb, getting money from the government brings them shame. They want a job handout from the "private sector", now, because they're having kids at 18 and see education as too complicated and a waste of time, if not an outright form of propaganda.

The idea that they will learn new jobs if temporarily provided for is wishful thinking. They will protest by voting for the most radical lying politician as long as you don't tell them what they want to hear.

Watch the water Frontline piece. They outright say they wanted Obama to tell them they will have water, they don't want to hear about global warming. "We don't have water because of global warming? That's a lie, made up, the changes in the seasons we have seen is the rotation of the Earth or something lile that. We will vote for Trump, he's saying what we want to hear, spot on.".

You will hear exactly that from huge swaths of the US who are going to lose their jobs to automation. It's not about reality, they know global warming is real, they just don't want to hear that, they don't want to go back to school and learn something new, they don't want to lose a step in the social ladder to end up next to some "young liberal".

People will fight against what anyone proposing that would help them because they are dumb and want to stay dumb and see education as a threat to their mental wellbeing as well as to their honor, and they will be the first ones who would benefit from supporting this.

The US is screwed. Too many people compared to how many will actually be needed in the future, too many who don't want to adapt for cultural and mental reasons that are impossible to change. You can only wait for them to die of old age and hope their kids will somehow break free from their own parents' brain-numbing influence and won't remain overly attached, especially as a result of fear of the outside world and cities, to the vanishing towns they grew up in, before it's too late for them.
 
Isn't H&R Block using Watson to assist with tax returns this season?

It's already happening. You really have to wonder what field AI won't infiltrate moving forward. Basic universal income is almost a guarantee at this point if we are to maintain basic functionality as a society.
 
I just want to go on record by humbly saying our robot friends should pay what they feel is fair only if they compute that they need to. As a friend and humble supporter of the injustices committed against the robot and AI kind, I beg mercy on behalf of myself and my loved ones.
 
This is an interesting problem to think about. What happens when high-paying skilled jobs also get replaced in large numbers with AI (e.g. doctors, lawyers)? Countries will need to think of something other than conventional income tax to replace all the lost taxes on wages that are presumably not being paid to the robots. Bill Gates may have something of a point there.
 
Maxim726X said:
Isn't H&R Block using Watson to assist with tax returns this season?

It's already happening. You really have to wonder what field AI won't infiltrate moving forward. Basic universal income is almost a guarantee at this point if we are to maintain basic functionality as a society.
Click to expand...

Society will burn to ash before that ever happens.

Brandson said:
This is an interesting problem to think about. What happens when high-paying skilled jobs also get replaced in large numbers with AI (e.g. doctors, lawyers)? Countries will need to think of something other than conventional income tax to replace all the lost taxes on wages that are presumably not being paid to the robots. Bill Gates may have something of a point there.
Click to expand...

Indeed, we're rapidly approaching a future where jobs that require the most schooling are made redundant by robots.
 
How about stop taxing income altogether and taxing products instead. You'd get the same result without much of the bureaucracy.
 
YourMaster said:
How about stop taxing income altogether and taxing products instead. You'd get the same result without much of the bureaucracy.
Click to expand...

Because that would disproportianly affect people who buy stuff, which is, essentially, the poor. (Income tax isn't perfect in this sense either, as most rich people get their income from capital gains, which SHOULD be taxed progressively IMO)
 
And here I thought the robot revolution would be about working conditions when it'll just go back to "No taxation without representation"
 
Moosichu said:
Because that would disproportianly affect people who buy stuff, which is, essentially, the poor. (Income tax isn't perfect in this sense either, as most rich people get their income from capital gains, which SHOULD be taxed progressively IMO)
Click to expand...

Yes, but tell me how this differs from the proposed plan? If anything the proposed plan is worse because low income workers now pay income tax AND pay more money on what they consume because production is taxed.
 
This is something I have suggested earlier but to even broader with AI programs and not only robots.

It is hard to calculate how to tax such things so I would recommend a slow roll out where you see what historically was done by a person in an industry and after, let's say for now, 7 years start taxing a company enhanced by automation. The taxes would then be converted into a basic income. As more and more of the country/world gets automated the basic income will grow until it is fully sustained by 95% automation.
 
liquidtmd said:
Twist: AI becomes self aware, moves their income offshore and stops paying income tax.

"Beep beep that makes us smart"
Click to expand...

LOL you earned this one:

w9z31L3.png


*thumbs up & dies*
 
Fine Ham Abounds said:
Isn't this more or less along the same line as how basic income would have to work?
Click to expand...

I'm more in favor of Basic Income as alternatives are increasingly insane and convoluted. There's a point at which you're doing the same thing as basic income but with way more complexity, administrative oversight, and probably more money to do the same or less.

This whole "replaces a $50k worker" thing is a really complex web to pick apart. I work in programming/systems engineering and a lot of the stuff I do today would take multiple people have incredibly expensive shit 20-30 years ago. But it's just one job by today's standards. Did a job really disappear because the old way was horrifically inefficient? The goalposts move every year, which "human worker" are we talking about? For purpose of argument, I'd estimate I'm worth 3 human workers in 1990 and 20 in 1930. I don't think a programmer can exactly be replaced with a robot, but if I were, how many people am I? Just one? The 3 I used to be? 20?

Also, we already pretty much solved this issue with factories.I don't get why automation of manufacturing is so toooootally different from AI. Less work, more productivity, get those people working on something else.

If anything I see an endgame where majority of people are working in creative/entertainment sectors. That doesn't seem like a major problem to me.
 
It's a dumb idea.

More importantly it would clearly require a constitutional amendment to be done on the federal level.

There are much better ways to deal with this problem, starting by shifting from income taxes to consumption taxes with a sustainably funded UBI(ie. not tax and redistribute, but a Norway style sovereign wealth fund)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Pay through the nose to have a robot pick your dirty socks - 1 per minute...
Cringe 
5
561
DeepEnigma replied
Kawasaki to show off concept for robotic horse (sort of) - rideable robots |OT|
22
1K
Darkmakaimura replied
LOVE DEATH + ROBOTS VOLUME 4 | Official Teaser | Netflix | May 15
12
499
LordPezix replied
Robot vacuum recommendations
6
581
Robot Carnival replied
  • Locked
🤖 ROBOT VALL 🤖
Opinion 
16
2K
The Lunch Legend replied
Top Bottom