Slashdot Mirror
San Francisco Politician Jane Kim Is Exploring a Tax On Robots (businessinsider.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Business Insider: In San Francisco, where robots already run food deliveries for Yelp's Eat24 and make lattes at a mall coffee kiosk, one politician is working to ensure the city stays ahead of the curve. Supervisor Jane Kim is exploring a tax on robots as one solution to offset the economic devastation a robot-powered workforce might bring. Companies that use robots to perform tasks previously done by humans would pay the city. Those public funds might be used to help retrain workers who lose their jobs to robots or to finance a basic income initiative. Kim, one of 11 city supervisors in San Francisco, has been interviewing tech leaders, labor groups, and public policy experts in the hopes of creating a task force that will explore how a "robot tax" might be implemented. San Francisco would become the first city to create such a tax, after European lawmakers rejected a similar proposal in February. Kim learned the concept of a robot tax when Bill Gates called for one in an interview with Quartz. It struck a chord with the San Francisco politician, who represents some of the poorest and wealthiest residents across the Tenderloin, South of Market, Civic Center, Treasure Island, and several other neighborhoods. She hears of robots cropping up in hotels, hospitals, and even her local bar, and worries about how automation might deepen the income gap.
Traffic lights? Cellular Phones? Urinals? Where does it begin or end?
While theoretically this might be a valuable way to help raise funds to support impacted low income workers, I'm skeptical that the funds raised, especially if successful, will actually go to help them. More likely than not, if San Francisco goes through with it, they'll just take the money to shore up the general tax base, enrich civil workers, or maybe a bit of pork for donors and the elite. Perhaps they'll say the money went to help an existing training center with a token set of new training manuals or something before the rest of the money is funneled to other pet projects. Then they'll go back and say they need a new tax to raise new funds. So unless they tie the launching of a specific new recurring initiative with the tax, it just feels like a money grab by the city government.
we've got a very regressive tax system. Instead of demanding that get fixed we just keep demanding more tax breaks. The tax breaks go to the very rich, gov'ts run out of money & can't raise taxes on the rich so they raise taxes on the poor through new regressive taxes. Lather, rinse, repeat. There's a name for it. It's called "Starve the Beast". It means intentionally breaking the government so people lose faith in it. It's really a form of terrorism ( inciting fear for political gain, what else would you call it?) but that word is so loaded nowadays you can't use it for anything meaningful.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Is there none of them, that come from the regular people pool that know we pay too much already, and could better keep and spend our own money rather than find some new, creative way to give to the a bloated bureaucracy and hope they can spend it better than we that earned it can?!?!?!
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Punitively taxing progress in order to protect the buggy whip.
Yeah, this is sure to work out for the best.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
That's billion with a "B". And recall that SF only has about 800,000 residents. According to SF Chronicle, San Francisco spends more money every year than at least 10 states, including Iowa and Maine. Kim is among the worst, but every politician in SF will spend up to and even slightly more money than they can get their hands on. This is just one more source of pork barrel money for them them. It has nothing to do with robots or job losses or housing or whatever. The fact that SF is in the shape that it is in after $9 billion every year is proof of how terrible the people running the city are. Or a less charitable person might say how corrupt..
Apparently, you consider sitting around and letting robots do work for you to be "earning".
Well, how are we going to define a robot? If it's a machine that can accomplish physical tasks automatically without human input, then it's quite broad; calculators would be included, for example.
At work I was asked to configure a bunch of switches (about 70) with the same command set with small variation, and it was expected to take about a day to do, which would mean I'd have to manually open an SSH session numerous times. Instead I just wrote a script in 10 minutes that completed the job in 5 minutes.
Does that mean I'd have to pay a tax? If so, that's absurd, and I'd fight that tooth and nail.
We can't just tax shit just because somebody came up with a way to automate it, otherwise the tech industry itself would have to be taxed to basically nonexistence. The word "computer" used to refer to a person, whereas nowadays it refers to an object. The economy simply cannot scale without automation, and it will severely hamper growth if we have to tax every little thing that gets automated.
By the way, I'm calling BS on anybody who thinks automation will make human labor obsolete or will otherwise result in long-term job losses. Yes, frictional unemployment is a real thing, but every time it happens it always ends up being temporary. You may as well argue that the telecom industry should have less employees now than in the past because automated switchboards replaced manual switchboards.
And off on a tangent, UBI is a retarded concept that won't help anything. People assume that income inequality actually matters, but in reality it's irrelevant. What is relevant and important is consumption inequality. For perspective, slashdot had an article that explained that $100,000 a year income is considered low income in San Francisco, yet that's considered high income in most other major cities. Why is this? Because costs of consumption vary by region.
UBI may increase incomes (it certainly won't do any favors for income inequality, by the way,) but it won't help consumption inequality at all, and will probably just make it worse.
I'm calling BS on anybody who thinks automation will make human labor obsolete or will otherwise result in long-term job losses. Yes, frictional unemployment is a real thing, but every time it happens it always ends up being temporary.
That will certainly change once the intellectual ability relevant to business tasks contained in a machine matches that of the median human employee. It won't just be a race against simple mechanical contraptions and dumb state machines any longer.
Just because you have observed some trend in the past, it doesn't mean that trend will necessarily continue forever, especially when the fundamentals behind that trend are changing radically.
Though, that's the one "good thing" about the Trump plan. The tax plan reduces breaks.
The one thing it, and every other tax plan, gets wrong is classes of income. Unearned income is taxed less than earned income.. Capital gains is a low bracket. And taxes on people exclude corporations, which are legally persons, except for taxing. Tax corporations under the same rules as a single filer, and you'd solve all the revenue problems of the US, though you'd also crash the economy. But setting the income tax rate to 0% for the first $100k, and 1% after, for all persons, natural and artificial, then you'd solve the revenue issues, while not taxing any one person too much. 1% tax (no exemptions) isn't too high, but apply that to artificial persons as well as natural ones, and all the problems go away, and with minimal impact on the economy (other than to boost it, as people will have more and spend more).
Learn to love Alaska