3 ms·
I always thought a good tax would be on automation. It's hard to define. But, at 100% automation, where no human is efficient at working -vs- machine labor, the
by kittiepryde 5y ago
I always thought a good tax would be on automation. It's hard to define. But, at 100% automation, where no human is efficient at working -vs- machine labor, then all automation output should flow to the people, or a 100% automation tax. Conversely, at 0% automation, tax is 0%; the part of the middle is hard.
- inglor_cz 5y agoThe thing is: it is much easier to move robots to another jurisdiction than to move workers. That is why robots won't be taxed anytime soon. Whoever starts with it, will cripple competitiveness of their own industry on the world markets.
- jwalton 5y agoHopefully we can agree that automation is, on the whole, a good thing. If all work were automated, we could all live a life of idle luxury. If I were an employer running a factory with little automation, then I could spend some R&D money to develop machinery to automate my manufacturing, and then spend money to retool my lines to use that automation, and then under your proposal I would now lose all of my profits, since 100% of my profit would now be taxed. This would seem like a pretty big disincentive for me to invest in automation.
- qPM9l3XJrF 5y agoA 100% tax on 100% automation means there's no incentive to achieve 100% automation
- kittiepryde 5y agoI can tell from the downvotes that people heavily disagree with me. But if no one is able to work, and one person ( the automation owner ) now has all the money. I don't see that as a good thing. But, we'll see how that plays out.