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

I don't know the answer

[Anonymous Coward]

But I think it will be found among these Slashdot comments!

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?

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:yeah, tax the robots

[ShanghaiBill]

Yeah, silly, they're the ones who will own the robots.

People also predicted that only "the rich" would own cars and computers. It didn't turn out that way. Most people, at least in the first world, already own robots. By any reasonable definition of "robot" your clothes washing machine qualifies. So does the dishwashing machine in your kitchen. Millions of people own Roombas and 3D printers.

Should these devices be taxed to compensate all the laundresses and scullery maids who no longer have jobs?

Re:yeah, tax the robots

[fluffernutter]

But the rich will have walking robots with laser cannons while you still have your Roomba.

Be careful what you do

[Opportunist]

We have seen what happens when you disenfranchise the local population and strip them of the bare minimum needs for survival. 1789 and 1917 give a pretty good example. That's why we outsourced that to areas where people can't simply pick up pitchforks and kill us, 'cause swimming through oceans with pitchforks is a bit unwieldy.

If you now again create a powerless group of people without any rights and means of existence right at your door, they don't need to swim. And they have a second amendment that ensures they're armed.

I would not go ahead full bore neo-capitalist into another industrial revolution where you don't try to squeeze your workers dry but simply shove them to the side. Working your workers 'til they're dead is one thing, but shoving them aside means that they are still strong enough at the end of the day to hold a gun against your head.

Re: Be careful what you do

[easyTree]

Let's not forget that a large portion of those workers are in an occupation whose sole purpose is to prevent expression of legitimate grievance against those creating the situation.

Divide and conquer and reward those who work against their own interests in favour of ours with toroidal sugar treats.

The answer is obviously UBI

[drinkypoo]

It doesn't matter if you call it Cost Of Living Allowance, Minimum Guaranteed Income, Universal Basic Income, or anything else, the only reasonable way to go forward in a capitalist society is with simple currency-based redistribution of wealth.

There are not and will not be enough jobs to go around. A significantly-sized population is required to maintain the level of technological development, so killing off the masses is a non-starter which would impinge upon the lifestyles of the rich. Their basic needs have to be met somehow. They are going to have to be handed money, because if you don't, one of two things will happen, or both. One, they will die in the streets in droves. Two, they will show up with torches and pitchforks and really ruin all the spreadsheets.

We can forestall this future with public works projects, and honestly that is a good idea anyway, especially in the USA where infrastructure is crumbling. But we cannot do so indefinitely. The health of our economic systems is based on endless growth, and the only way for humanity to enjoy endless growth is to expand into space. We are decades behind where we could be in that area. We may, in fact, be too late. Rockets can never get enough humans off this mudball to make a difference, for reasons of physics, and we still don't know how to build a space elevator. We may well fail here, and never escape our gravity well (a handful of experiments aside.)

Re:Automation is NOT the enemy.

[zifn4b]

If you think automation is going to make people permanently unemployable then perhaps it's finally time to admit that we need some sort of universal income so that people can afford basic things like food and shelter.

Yes exactly but you didn't even state the problem clearly. That's what drives me nuts about this issue. Imagine a world where human labor is replaced by robots. The labor becomes upkeep for the robots by replacing parts, upgrading firmware, etc. What that does is it decreases the overall need for labor. In order to understand the problem effectively, you have to be able to see the need for labor decreasing and the population increasing. Then you have to juxtapose that with the current economic system and the problem should become incredibly clear. An economic system whereby every person must perform labor in exchange for money in order to pay for their expenses (largely mandatory) does not work anymore. The only way, as you sarcastically put it, to make that existing system work is to essentially invoke the story of Procrustes Bed and chop the population down to a size that fits that economic model. That of course is absolutely ludicrous and defeats the entire purpose of innovation which is... to EVOLVE.

I believe what's coming is what was predicted in the 50's. Shorter work weeks, more leisure time and that's because through our hard work and efforts we have arrived at the future and will now reap the benefits of all that effort. The type of people who are naysayers and want to keep the status quo are likely to be people who are reaping massive rewards from the current system or possibly puritanical work ethic folks (like the ones that founded America) because the idea of more leisure time than work time is incomprehensible to people like the Mennonites. None of these are good reasons to keep the system.

If we don't evolve, we are effectively have another time of Dark Ages.

BOOK: Says Microsoft is abusive in many ways.

[Futurepower(R)]

"... 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)

Re:Except, that is not Capitalism

[drinkypoo]

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".

I am interested in discussion of how one can avoid the one becoming the other, especially when the definition of capitalism is that capital controls the means of production.

The wealthy install politicians where they believe it suits their interests, and those politicians act as protectionists.

So, how do you stop the wealthy from exerting this unfair advantage over others?

Re:Poor analogy

[Richard_at_work]

I take it you have never seen the accounting floor of a large business circa 1970 then, because it would have been filled with semi-skilled people filling out numbers in books and passing aggregated numbers to the next tier. Thats how books were done in those days. And those positions were replaced by spreadsheets, with automated cascading on changes, no need for more than a few people anymore.

See the following image for an accountancy department prior to computerisation (computerisation as we know it today):

https://benpadley.files.wordpr...

Its no different at all to your factory worker example. No different at all. You just never noticed the accounting jobs disappearing.

Re:Except, that is not Capitalism

[dryeo]

The AC is basically right. Capitalism rewards those with the capital and the market rewards the most efficient at using that capital. It is often more efficient to cheat and an easy way to cheat is to get into the position of making the rules. As long as it is more efficient to repress the competition then actually have a better product, the successful capitalist will focus on repressing the competition and you end up with crony capitalism.