Slashdot Mirror
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?
There are a few billionaires out there and that's it.
That's enough. Even just the eight richest people in the world have as much wealth as the poorest 50%. That's 8 people vs 3.5 billion. The wealth distribution in this world is completely out of whack. Give that money to the poor and they'll spend it in the local economy and get things going.
"... Nevada, a state which just happens to have no income tax."
Nevada has no Corporate taxes or personal income taxes.
Washington state has no personal income tax, but has taxes "based on gross receipts of businesses".
Microsoft Is Filled With Abusive Managers And Overworked Employees, Says Tell-All Book (May 23, 2012)
While I agree with there being a big problem with the ultra wealthy in numerous regards, the problem is not Capitalism. The US is not practicing Capitalism, it's practicing a form of Mercantilism which we call "Crony Capitalism". The wealthy install politicians where they believe it suits their interests, and those politicians act as protectionists.
When Adam Smith defined Capitalism the primary role of Government was to prevent monopolies and break them up where they occurred. The Government was not supposed to allow the installment of Politicians by simple means of cash payment like we have today. Those are two very distinct issues with the current system. If you say "Capitalism led to the current state" I will tell you that is idiocy. The people need to behave as was intended and rule the Government, not the other way around. People have been ignorant and lazy, and allowed overreach.
Milton Friedman's "Capitalism and Freedom" is a modern easier read, which will tell you very similar to what Adam Smith did in "Wealth of Nations".
I agree with you that there are big problems at hand, but moving to Socialism will only make problems worse. Socialism fails when it runs out of other people's money to spend, and we have a large amount of history to sample to see the end of that line. The bigger the bureaucracy the more corrupt it becomes, which is why the US Government was founded on the principle of Minimum powers of the Federal Government (another thing we have lazily let go of).
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.