4 ms·

It’s time to rethink the legal treatment of robots [by taxing them]

3 points by bmcn2020 6y ago

playcache 6y ago
article is behind a paywall.
- bmcn2020 6y ago
  Oh sorry didn't notice. The Flipboard version was open
- bmcn2020 6y ago
  Is it allowed to paste the entire article here?
nabla9 6y ago
From taxation purposes robots are not anything special. Robots and all other automation are capital expenditures (CAPEX). The correct level of thinking is capital share and wage share of work. Taxing corporate income or value added tax taxes robots. If you want to support labour, add small UBI paid with from those taxes.
- bmcn2020 6y ago
  The argument in the article is that the taxation at it stands, with capital taxes for AI, disadvantages human labor. "Income and employment taxes are the largest sources of revenue for the government, together accounting for almost 90% of total federal tax revenue. Not only does AI not pay income taxes or generate employment taxes, it does not purchase goods and services, so it is not charged sales taxes, and it does not purchase or own property, so it does not pay property taxes. AI is simply not a taxpayer. If all work were to be automated tomorrow, most of the tax base would immediately disappear. When businesses automate, the government loses revenue, potentially hundreds of billions of dollars in the aggregate. This may significantly constrain the government’s ability to pay for things like Social Security, national defense, and health care. If people eventually get comparable jobs, then the revenue loss is only temporary. But if job losses are permanent, the entire tax structure must change. ... The advantage of tax neutrality between people and AI is that it permits the marketplace to adjust without tax distortions. Businesses should then automate only if it will be more efficient or productive. Since the current tax system favors automation, a move toward a neutral tax system would increase the appeal of workers. Should the pessimistic prediction of a future with substantially increased unemployment due to automation prove correct, the revenue from neutral taxation could then be used to provide improved education and training for workers, and even to support social benefit programs such as basic income. Once policymakers agree that they do not want to advantage AI over human workers, they could reduce taxes on people or reduce tax benefits given to AI. For instance, payroll taxes (which are charged to businesses on their workers’ salaries) should perhaps be eliminated, which would promote neutrality, reduce tax complexity, and end taxation of something of social value—human labor."
  - nabla9 6y ago
    >with capital taxes for AI, disadvantages human labour. As I said, the correct way to address this is capital share vs wage share. Robots are just part of this 'capital deepening' or increasing 'capital intensity'.

3 points by bmcn2020 6y ago

playcache 6y ago

article is behind a paywall.

bmcn2020 6y ago
Oh sorry didn't notice. The Flipboard version was open
bmcn2020 6y ago
Is it allowed to paste the entire article here?

nabla9 6y ago

From taxation purposes robots are not anything special. Robots and all other automation are capital expenditures (CAPEX). The correct level of thinking is capital share and wage share of work. Taxing corporate income or value added tax taxes robots. If you want to support labour, add small UBI paid with from those taxes.

bmcn2020 6y ago
The argument in the article is that the taxation at it stands, with capital taxes for AI, disadvantages human labor. "Income and employment taxes are the largest sources of revenue for the government, together accounting for almost 90% of total federal tax revenue. Not only does AI not pay income taxes or generate employment taxes, it does not purchase goods and services, so it is not charged sales taxes, and it does not purchase or own property, so it does not pay property taxes. AI is simply not a taxpayer. If all work were to be automated tomorrow, most of the tax base would immediately disappear. When businesses automate, the government loses revenue, potentially hundreds of billions of dollars in the aggregate. This may significantly constrain the government’s ability to pay for things like Social Security, national defense, and health care. If people eventually get comparable jobs, then the revenue loss is only temporary. But if job losses are permanent, the entire tax structure must change. ... The advantage of tax neutrality between people and AI is that it permits the marketplace to adjust without tax distortions. Businesses should then automate only if it will be more efficient or productive. Since the current tax system favors automation, a move toward a neutral tax system would increase the appeal of workers. Should the pessimistic prediction of a future with substantially increased unemployment due to automation prove correct, the revenue from neutral taxation could then be used to provide improved education and training for workers, and even to support social benefit programs such as basic income. Once policymakers agree that they do not want to advantage AI over human workers, they could reduce taxes on people or reduce tax benefits given to AI. For instance, payroll taxes (which are charged to businesses on their workers’ salaries) should perhaps be eliminated, which would promote neutrality, reduce tax complexity, and end taxation of something of social value—human labor."
- nabla9 6y ago
  >with capital taxes for AI, disadvantages human labour. As I said, the correct way to address this is capital share vs wage share. Robots are just part of this 'capital deepening' or increasing 'capital intensity'.