4 ms·

I do wonder what a robot tax would look like: is gmail a robot? Is Alexa a Robot? Is Tesla a robot? I think this stems from the basic idea that we always find

I do wonder what a robot tax would look like: is gmail a robot? Is Alexa a Robot? Is Tesla a robot? I think this stems from the basic idea that we always find it compelling to tax someone else, and what better to tax that which cannot defend itself. But then you realize a robot is like a hammer, and i dont think the hammer cares about filing to the IRS.

joncrocks 10y ago
Exactly. Is a washing machine a robot? Is a computer a robot? This strikes me as unworkable, as people will simply look to circumvent whatever you look to put in place due to the large financial incentive you just put in place.
delinka 10y ago
That seems a bit pedantic. If you're taxing "hammers," you're taxing the owner of the hammer, either at the point of sale, or perhaps as a tax on capital equipment. So, if you're taxing "robots," you have to define "robot" and then collect tax at the time of sale, or on capital equipment. This whole idea (limiting a new tax to robots or the work they do) seems fraught with disaster. I think it'd make more sense to increase tax on both liquid capital and capital equipment to make the whole scheme
- joncrocks 10y ago
  I think the point is that 'robot' isn't really a well-defined term. When does a machine become a robot?
- mason240 10y ago
  Do we really need to reinvent the wheel when it comes to taxes? Tax personal and corporate incomes, just like we do now. If someone is able run an automated business with no employees, just tax the profits and income. Nothing changes.
  - briandear 10y ago
    Why tax any of that? What's wrong with a consumption tax? You buy something, you pay a tax. Everything gets taxed equally and the government no longer gets to pick winners and losers based on the relative political power of the entity being taxed. The way it works now is that taxes are used to manipulate behavior rather than simply collecting money to provide services for citizens. Income taxes provide too much power to governments.
    - mcguire 10y ago
      Not everyone gets taxed equally with a consumption tax. "You can only eat so much filet mignon," to quote a professor I once had. Non-progressive taxes (which is mostly what we have in the US now) provide too much power to the wealthy. Further, in non-totalitarian societies, the government isn't a separate entity---it is controlled by whoever has the most power in the society.
    - mason240 10y ago
      I agree. I've long been a in favor a consumption tax such as FairTax, which gives everyone a "prebate" for taxes on the first $50,000 or so, to ensure it is still a progressive tax. However, I don't think that would work in a theoretical "post labor" world where only 25% or less of the population is actually employed.
  - talmand 10y ago
    Except for the reduced tax revenue for the government, nothing changes at all.
  - delinka 10y ago
    Had there been employees, taxes would also have been collected from them. Replacing employees with robots reduces tax revenue. Sure, additional profits going to the owners make for more tax paid by those owners, but not enough to offset the reduction in tax revenue caused by eliminating employees.
- conanbatt 10y ago
  I would be hilarious if not dystopian to see the government changing the definition of what a robot is constantly in pursuit of tax revenue. In any case, i suspect the whole push a government could do to a robot tax is simply to increase tax revenue, all else be damned.
talmand 10y ago
Here's two basic definitions of robot: "A machine that resembles a human and does mechanical, routine tasks on command." "Any machine or mechanical device that operates automatically with humanlike skill." So, I would say that none of your examples even come close to fitting that description. We can also assume it would be rather easy to determine if a machine fits the robot definition and should be taxed. Also, if the government could find a reason to justify taxing hammers that take taxable jobs away from workers that pay income taxes, you can be sure they would implement such a tax.
- 6d6b73 10y ago
  > "A machine that resembles a human and does mechanical, routine tasks on command." Oh, come on. In this situation you can avoid being taxed simply by making a robot that does not look like a human. "Any machine or mechanical device that operates automatically with humanlike skill." Dishwasher is usually better than human, and is a mechanical device.. Tax dishwasher!
  - conanbatt 10y ago
    Those damn dishwashers are stealing our jobs and not even paying taxes for it.
  - talmand 10y ago
    >> Tax dishwasher! Just wait, one day it will happen. Regardless, we still have human dishwashers, so it isn't like it's a lost art.
gibbitz 10y ago
I think what should be taxable here is not a "robot" but a human replacement for the purpose of reducing costs in the pursuit of profit. Gates was talking about industrial job displacing "robots". If you didn't fire your personal assistant to replace him/her with Alexa/Siri or you chauffer because you updated your Tesla software and you're not at least an LLC then that wouldn't count. The point is not to reward businesses that replace workers, but to make that more difficult through loss of revenue and tax complications. This should be seen more as an obstacle than a cost. Most americans (myself included) understand very little about corporate taxation, but are quite aware that through armies of accountants and lawyers the larger companies pay less taxes per dollar than the average american citizen. (a simple google search kicked this back from last year: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2016/03/07/27-giant-profitable-companies-paid-no-taxes/81399094/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2016/03/07/27-gi...).
- conanbatt 10y ago
  > I think what should be taxable here is not a "robot" but a human replacement for the purpose of reducing costs in the pursuit of profit. This is taxing tools. Why would we want to disincentivize the creation and utilization of tools? And what would be the purpose or capacity to fulfill such a thing. This tax the robots thing got to me by several places and the only way this could have picked up is that people equated robots with people, as in a subservient. But they are as much as any other object, and it doesnt really bring anything new to the table.

joncrocks 10y ago

Exactly. Is a washing machine a robot? Is a computer a robot? This strikes me as unworkable, as people will simply look to circumvent whatever you look to put in place due to the large financial incentive you just put in place.

delinka 10y ago

That seems a bit pedantic. If you're taxing "hammers," you're taxing the owner of the hammer, either at the point of sale, or perhaps as a tax on capital equipment. So, if you're taxing "robots," you have to define "robot" and then collect tax at the time of sale, or on capital equipment. This whole idea (limiting a new tax to robots or the work they do) seems fraught with disaster. I think it'd make more sense to increase tax on both liquid capital and capital equipment to make the whole scheme

joncrocks 10y ago
I think the point is that 'robot' isn't really a well-defined term. When does a machine become a robot?
mason240 10y ago
Do we really need to reinvent the wheel when it comes to taxes? Tax personal and corporate incomes, just like we do now. If someone is able run an automated business with no employees, just tax the profits and income. Nothing changes.
- briandear 10y ago
  Why tax any of that? What's wrong with a consumption tax? You buy something, you pay a tax. Everything gets taxed equally and the government no longer gets to pick winners and losers based on the relative political power of the entity being taxed. The way it works now is that taxes are used to manipulate behavior rather than simply collecting money to provide services for citizens. Income taxes provide too much power to governments.
  - mcguire 10y ago
    Not everyone gets taxed equally with a consumption tax. "You can only eat so much filet mignon," to quote a professor I once had. Non-progressive taxes (which is mostly what we have in the US now) provide too much power to the wealthy. Further, in non-totalitarian societies, the government isn't a separate entity---it is controlled by whoever has the most power in the society.
  - mason240 10y ago
    I agree. I've long been a in favor a consumption tax such as FairTax, which gives everyone a "prebate" for taxes on the first $50,000 or so, to ensure it is still a progressive tax. However, I don't think that would work in a theoretical "post labor" world where only 25% or less of the population is actually employed.
- talmand 10y ago
  Except for the reduced tax revenue for the government, nothing changes at all.
- delinka 10y ago
  Had there been employees, taxes would also have been collected from them. Replacing employees with robots reduces tax revenue. Sure, additional profits going to the owners make for more tax paid by those owners, but not enough to offset the reduction in tax revenue caused by eliminating employees.
conanbatt 10y ago
I would be hilarious if not dystopian to see the government changing the definition of what a robot is constantly in pursuit of tax revenue. In any case, i suspect the whole push a government could do to a robot tax is simply to increase tax revenue, all else be damned.

talmand 10y ago

Here's two basic definitions of robot: "A machine that resembles a human and does mechanical, routine tasks on command." "Any machine or mechanical device that operates automatically with humanlike skill." So, I would say that none of your examples even come close to fitting that description. We can also assume it would be rather easy to determine if a machine fits the robot definition and should be taxed. Also, if the government could find a reason to justify taxing hammers that take taxable jobs away from workers that pay income taxes, you can be sure they would implement such a tax.

6d6b73 10y ago
> "A machine that resembles a human and does mechanical, routine tasks on command." Oh, come on. In this situation you can avoid being taxed simply by making a robot that does not look like a human. "Any machine or mechanical device that operates automatically with humanlike skill." Dishwasher is usually better than human, and is a mechanical device.. Tax dishwasher!
- conanbatt 10y ago
  Those damn dishwashers are stealing our jobs and not even paying taxes for it.
- talmand 10y ago
  >> Tax dishwasher! Just wait, one day it will happen. Regardless, we still have human dishwashers, so it isn't like it's a lost art.

gibbitz 10y ago

I think what should be taxable here is not a "robot" but a human replacement for the purpose of reducing costs in the pursuit of profit. Gates was talking about industrial job displacing "robots". If you didn't fire your personal assistant to replace him/her with Alexa/Siri or you chauffer because you updated your Tesla software and you're not at least an LLC then that wouldn't count. The point is not to reward businesses that replace workers, but to make that more difficult through loss of revenue and tax complications. This should be seen more as an obstacle than a cost. Most americans (myself included) understand very little about corporate taxation, but are quite aware that through armies of accountants and lawyers the larger companies pay less taxes per dollar than the average american citizen. (a simple google search kicked this back from last year: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2016/03/07/27-giant-profitable-companies-paid-no-taxes/81399094/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2016/03/07/27-gi...).

conanbatt 10y ago
> I think what should be taxable here is not a "robot" but a human replacement for the purpose of reducing costs in the pursuit of profit. This is taxing tools. Why would we want to disincentivize the creation and utilization of tools? And what would be the purpose or capacity to fulfill such a thing. This tax the robots thing got to me by several places and the only way this could have picked up is that people equated robots with people, as in a subservient. But they are as much as any other object, and it doesnt really bring anything new to the table.