Backlash Builds Against Bill Gates' Call For A Robot Tax (cbsnews.com)

Bill Gates argued governments should tax companies that use replace humans with robots, which "provoked enough negative feedback to fry a motherboard," according to CBS News. Here's how they summarized some of the reactions:

• "Why pick on robots?" former Treasury Secretary Summers asked in a Washington Post opinion piece, which called Gates "profoundly misguided." The economist argued that progress, however messy and disruptive sometimes, ultimately benefits society overall.
• Mike Shedlock, a financial adviser with Sitka Pacific Capital Management in Edmonds, Washington, wrote on his blog that robot owners, who likely would pay the tax, would simply pass it along by jacking up prices.
• The European Union's parliament in February rejected a measure to impose a tax on robots, using much the same reasoning as Gates' critics.

But even while acknowledging that technology can complement humans rather than replacing them, a Bloomberg columnist argues that "Gates is right to say that we should start thinking ahead of time about how to use policy to mitigate the disruptions of automation." So if we're not going to tax robots, then how should society handle the next great wave of automated labor?

Comments

yeah, tax the robots

[FudRucker]

because you would not want to tax the ultra mega rich people that actually have enough money to help feed & house the disabled, poor & homeless, they need to buy that new yacht, jet and new limo every year

Re:yeah, tax the robots

[drinkypoo]

The problem with your thought is the underlying assumption of ownership of other people. Those billionaire's stuff? You don't own that.

The problem with your thought is the underlying assumption that you can take it with you. Bill Gates? He won't own anything if he's dead.

While some on the list got their wealth through a combination of plunder and subjugation (Saudi royals) - folks like Bill Gates got rich through the voluntary exchange of goods.

That is a lie, and you are a liar. Bill Gates got rich by abusing Microsoft's monopoly position. The USDoJ found that Microsoft (under the direct control of Gates) basically abused its position in every way possible. And then under Bush, John Ashcroft declared that they would not be punished in any way. Then the Gates Foundation was created to hide those ill-gotten goods from future administrations which might try to seize them.

Theft is theft, no matter how many people cooperate in the theft.

Besides the fact that Bill Gates is a career criminal just a persian cat and a monocle away from being a bond villain, he is subject to the same logic as all the other rich. Point the first, if you take too much from the system it will break and you will have nothing. Point the second, if you get more from the system, you should pay more into the system, because you are deriving more benefit. If you don't want to share with the less-fortunate, then do things that make them more fortunate, so that they depend on you less. However, Bill Gates succeeded not on technical merit, but through skullduggery. His company attacked companies with superior products, which led to more people using Microsoft products. Microsoft set computing back by years if not decades with their lawsuits and lies, which itself is literally a crime against humanity which was perpetrated by Bill Gates. Computing literally saves lives, and he held it back so that he could make more money. Fuck him sideways, fuck him with a pitchfork, which is precisely what is coming for the wealthy if they do not learn to share with the less fortunate who weren't born with a silver spoon in their ass.

Imagine for a moment that Ingo invents something cool.

Then Bill Gates shows up and shits all over it. That is how capitalism works.

Re: I don't know the answer

[fluffernutter]

UBI would still involve plenty of motivation to work. You're always going to make more money if you work.

Re: I don't know the answer

[Fire_Wraith]

Exactly. It's human nature to always want more, which is why billionaires don't stop trying to make money. It's also how we define ourselves (especially men) within society, by what we do. Communism failed in large part because it ignored this fundamental fact, and removed the incentive to work harder/better, or to invest anything, be it time, effort, or money.

Look at it this way - if you won a contest that gave you $1,000 a month from now on, tax-free, would you quit your job, or would you think to yourself "I have $1000 more per month to spend on fun stuff!" Now, maybe you'd quit your job to go back to college for a better degree, in order to get an even better job, but is that a bad thing either?