• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Should we tax robots?

acbytesla

Penultimate Amazing
acbytesla
Joined
Dec 14, 2012
Messages
39,427
It's clear in the coming years if we are not there already that increased automation will destroy more jobs and opportunities than it creates leading to more unemployment and making permanent the socioeconomic strata.

Some ideas to deal with these problems include taxing robots and universal basic income. What should the government do? Implement these solutions, nothing, or something else?
 
Beelzebuddy said:
Why is it "clear?"

I think Luddites just gonna lude.
Click to expand...

You don't think it's clear? And I'm not a luddite. I don't think we should do anything that will slow automation. Nevertheless, I don't believe the invisible hand can keep up.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
It's clear in the coming years if we are not there already that increased automation will destroy more jobs and opportunities than it creates leading to more unemployment and making permanent the socioeconomic strata.

Some ideas to deal with these problems include taxing robots and universal basic income. What should the government do? Implement these solutions, nothing, or something else?
Click to expand...

Why not just tax all corporations at a fair rate?
 
acbytesla said:
It's clear in the coming years if we are not there already that increased automation will destroy more jobs and opportunities than it creates leading to more unemployment and making permanent the socioeconomic strata.

Some ideas to deal with these problems include taxing robots and universal basic income. What should the government do? Implement these solutions, nothing, or something else?
Click to expand...

It might be hard to get cash out of a robot ;).
 
The whole point of automation is to make products cheaper.
While a UBI could lower the cost of labor so much that robots would become the more expensive option, once a cost-effective labor-saving device exists it is hard to find humans willing to do the job of a machine.
So taxing robots of subsidizing human workers both would just hinder innovation and keep prices higher than they would need to be.

I have my reservations about a UBI, since it would solve only a tiny part of the problem whilst still leaving the most vulnerable members of society in a fragile state.

We should simply tax the **** out of top earners, and they will secretly thank us for it: no one wants to have $10 billion, they just want to be as rich as Warren Buffet or Bill Gates; easy thing to solve: make sure no one has more than $100 million and put a 95% tax rate on incomes over $1Million.
That way, relative wealth stays the same and the country can afford decent education, infrastructure and health-care.
 
eeyore1954 said:
Is it really clear? Think of how many jobs tractors and various farm machinery have killed many years ago. Think of how many jobs the various textile machines killed over 100 years ago, etc. New jobs filled the voids.
It may be happening now who knows.
I manage a newsletter for accountants and one of the articles I included today was Automation and the End of Accounting.
http://www.computerworld.com/article/3195070/financial-it/automation-and-the-end-of-accounting.html
Click to expand...

Well that's the traditional argument. But have things changed fundamentally that Adam Smith's rules no longer apply? Right now it is predicted that 6 million retail jobs will be lost over the next 10 years and twice that many delivery and taxi drivers. We're looking at job losses due to automotion in almost every industry. Yes some new jobs will be created.

But will that be enough? I think arguing they will is like saying Moore's Law will continue to apply.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
The whole point of automation is to make products cheaper.
While a UBI could lower the cost of labor so much that robots would become the more expensive option, once a cost-effective labor-saving device exists it is hard to find humans willing to do the job of a machine.
So taxing robots of subsidizing human workers both would just hinder innovation and keep prices higher than they would need to be.

I have my reservations about a UBI, since it would solve only a tiny part of the problem whilst still leaving the most vulnerable members of society in a fragile state.

We should simply tax the **** out of top earners, and they will secretly thank us for it: no one wants to have $10 billion, they just want to be as rich as Warren Buffet or Bill Gates; easy thing to solve: make sure no one has more than $100 million and put a 95% tax rate on incomes over $1Million.
That way, relative wealth stays the same and the country can afford decent education, infrastructure and health-care.
Click to expand...

I am not against high tax rates for the top incomes, but 95% is just too high, and I am against Govnerment insuring that no one has more then 100 Million.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
The whole point of automation is to make products cheaper.
While a UBI could lower the cost of labor so much that robots would become the more expensive option, once a cost-effective labor-saving device exists it is hard to find humans willing to do the job of a machine.
So taxing robots of subsidizing human workers both would just hinder innovation and keep prices higher than they would need to be.

I have my reservations about a UBI, since it would solve only a tiny part of the problem whilst still leaving the most vulnerable members of society in a fragile state.

We should simply tax the **** out of top earners, and they will secretly thank us for it: no one wants to have $10 billion, they just want to be as rich as Warren Buffet or Bill Gates; easy thing to solve: make sure no one has more than $100 million and put a 95% tax rate on incomes over $1Million.
That way, relative wealth stays the same and the country can afford decent education, infrastructure and health-care.
Click to expand...

I am against both the UBI and taxing robots or automation. I think everyone who can should work. But doing what if most of the jobs that private citizens want to pay for are more efficiently performed by robots?
 
acbytesla said:
For what end? Should government provide a universal basic income?
Click to expand...

At some point, sure. We'll get to a point where few things are actually scarce and the average individual can have some sort of basic living provided by taxes.

But why tax a corporation that uses robots domestically different than a corporation who uses a sweatshop in Dhaka?
 
Didn't we already do this when Gates mentioned this without realizing the MS Office would need to be taxed first?
 
acbytesla said:
Some ideas to deal with these problems include taxing robots and universal basic income.
Click to expand...
A universal standard income will become necessary in the future and could make social welfare redundant. Unfortunately, it will take a long time before the idea takes hold that somebody who is not working is not a bludger.

As for taxing robots, that is a tax too easy to avoid. Just shift more industries overseas. The humble home computer does more jobs than an army of white collar workers could do in the past. How much tax should I pay for my hobby?
 
acbytesla said:
Well that's the traditional argument. But have things changed fundamentally that Adam Smith's rules no longer apply? Right now it is predicted that 6 million retail jobs will be lost over the next 10 years and twice that many delivery and taxi drivers. We're looking at job losses due to automotion in almost every industry. Yes some new jobs will be created.

But will that be enough? I think arguing they will is like saying Moore's Law will continue to apply.
Click to expand...

I'm going to bet on 11,000 years of human innovation not hurting the number of jobs unless the other side comes up with something Really Convincing.
 
We will see a sharp drop in population in the decades to come. This alone will necessitate massive automation, just to offset the lack of labor.
Assuming the capitalist system can survive such an extended downsizing (which is far from assured), people will continue to want more than what can be easily got from a machine: we have a deep need to have relatively more than our peers.
So we will pay people to make or modify versions of mass-produced articles just so we can feel special.
I can imagine a "Freemium" world in people can decide to just make do with (free) bare necessities and/or earn "Points for upgrades" in a gamified freelance job market by doing some tasks here and there as part of larger, distributed projects.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I'm going to bet on 11,000 years of human innovation not hurting the number of jobs unless the other side comes up with something Really Convincing.
Click to expand...

I'm not. I think we've been seeing the impact of automation and laissez-faire capitalism for the last 30 years and it's impact. It has been creating a permanent ruling and underclass. A situation which I believe will continue to grow exponentially worse.
 
acbytesla said:
I'm not. I think we've been seeing the impact of automation and laissez-faire capitalism for the last 30 years and it's impact. It has been creating a permanent ruling and underclass. A situation which I believe will continue to grow exponentially worse.
Click to expand...

But that is a separate issue from jobs. In 30 years there are now more jobs in the US and the world.

In January 1986 there were 98,734,000 jobs. In January 2016 there were 137,506,000.
 
BobTheCoward said:
But that is a separate issue from jobs. In 30 years there are now more jobs in the US and the world.

In January 1986 there were 98,734,000 jobs. In January 2016 there were 137,506,000.
Click to expand...

There was also a population of 230 million as opposed to 350 million today. I think there will always be jobs but they are less likely to be essential. You can work, but we don't actually need you so you'll take what we pay you and you'll like it or you can do entirely without
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom