The robot that takes your job should pay taxes, says Bill Gates
-
Robots are taking human jobs. But Bill Gates believes that governments should tax companies’ use of them, as a way to at least temporarily slow the spread of automation and to fund other types of employment.
Is that a 1099, or a W-4?
-
Kent Sharkey wrote:
Is that a 1099, or a W-4?
I think that would be a WD-40 [^].
«There is a spectrum, from "clearly desirable behaviour," to "possibly dodgy behavior that still makes some sense," to "clearly undesirable behavior." We try to make the latter into warnings or, better, errors. But stuff that is in the middle category you don’t want to restrict unless there is a clear way to work around it.» Eric Lippert, May 14, 2008
-
Actually, without sharing the increased income from using robots, we will see problems at a scale never before (numerous times the cause and effect of destroying the weaving machinery in the late 19th)...
Skipper: We'll fix it. Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this? Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
-
So, Excel does with one person what used to take several. Should every installation of Excel pay taxes? What about Outlook, which has reduced jobs for secretaries? And what about Bill's house? I assume, perhaps incorrectly, that he has a lawn. Does the person who maintains that lawn use a lawn mower? If so, shouldn't Bill pay taxes on that labor saving device? Or taxes on his car, since he doesn't have to maintain a stable, carriage, coachman, etc.? Finally, what about tasks that would simply be eliminated entirely were it not for robots?
-
-
Kent Sharkey wrote:
to fund other types of employment
E.g. lawyers and accountants.
-
So, Excel does with one person what used to take several. Should every installation of Excel pay taxes? What about Outlook, which has reduced jobs for secretaries? And what about Bill's house? I assume, perhaps incorrectly, that he has a lawn. Does the person who maintains that lawn use a lawn mower? If so, shouldn't Bill pay taxes on that labor saving device? Or taxes on his car, since he doesn't have to maintain a stable, carriage, coachman, etc.? Finally, what about tasks that would simply be eliminated entirely were it not for robots?
Joe Woodbury wrote:
So, Excel does with one person what used to take several. Should every installation of Excel pay taxes? What about Outlook, which has reduced jobs for secretaries?
While true that those reduced the number of lets say accountants and secretaries on the upside they created an equally or bigger numbers of IT related jobs. As for the lawn, house, car... just think of all the people working to produce said cars, houses and so on. Bill was talking mainly about factories(I think) and the huge impact on labor. Just think of a plant that has say 2000 workers(around 650 per shift) that will get fully automated. Net result loss of 1800 jobs. Sure they will need some extra maintenance technicians and PLC engineers but the number of jobs created compared to the number lost is huge. Bottom line, I kinda agree with him. Not completely but more inclined in favor then against.
-
Companies* already pay taxes on their profit so if the robot increases profitability it will be taxed. * Yes - I know, but that is a different issue to do with oversupply of accountants and lawyers, not robots.
The problem is the difference between the larger taxes and between the lost income of those have no job at all... The companies are paying larger taxes, but those lost any income not only will not pay taxes, but will get some kind of government support... That's one plus but two minuses... with an addition of growing number of unemployed with all the problems it makes...
Skipper: We'll fix it. Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this? Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
-
did the Lord say that machines ought ta take the place of living, and what's a subsitute for bread and beans, I ain't seen it, do engines get rewarded for their steam --John Henry He's aiming at jalousy, and taking away the aim from the real problem. And sorry, but Bill Gates stating that someone should pay taxes? The master at not-paying taxes is calling to tax others? The text only proves that extreme wealth is not compatible with democracy and a free society :cool:
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
-
did the Lord say that machines ought ta take the place of living, and what's a subsitute for bread and beans, I ain't seen it, do engines get rewarded for their steam --John Henry He's aiming at jalousy, and taking away the aim from the real problem. And sorry, but Bill Gates stating that someone should pay taxes? The master at not-paying taxes is calling to tax others? The text only proves that extreme wealth is not compatible with democracy and a free society :cool:
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
The text only proves that extreme wealth is not compatible with democracy and a free society
Actually, all it proves is that extreme wealth is not correlated with extreme wisdom.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
