Bill Gates Says Job Stealing Robots Need to Pay Taxes

...Co-founder of Microsoft Bill Gates suggests that robots that take human jobs should pay taxes.

“Right now, the human worker who does, say, $50,000 worth of work in a factory, that income is taxed and you get income tax, Social Security tax, all those things. If a robot comes in to do the same thing, you’d think that we’d tax the robot at a similar level,” Gates explained in an interview with Quartz.

…Gates believes there will be little resistance from companies that employ a robot workforce.

Bill Gates Says Job Stealing Robots Need to Pay Taxes

The article starts by saying that automation will start taking peoples' jobs in the future. Excuse me? It's already happening!

Seems to me we need to define 'robot.' Is it just automatons that count, or all automation?

Gates offers one solution, and it's a good one. IF the definition of robot is substantially expanded. And he's right, there will be little resistance from companies that employ a robot workforce, because the alternative (quantifying the environmental effects of resource extraction, etc.) will be far, far more expensive to the corporate beneficiaries.

a reply to: soficrow

I suppose that the corporations will lobby for free 'health care' for robots, if the robots are required to pay taxes.

See where this is going! Next they'll have rights and be classed as a person so the Corp can use their vote to do their partisan bidding.

I'm onto you Bill Gates !

/s

Ole Billy boy. The definition of thief and scumbag. Microsoft never really created much on their own. Mostly they co-opted other people's efforts. Akin to a cowbird.

As far as taxes go. The poor get a pass for being poor. You get a credit for making new debt slaves. The tax code is complex so that corporations also get a free pass. Everybody else in between, bend over. It's an ancient game where the dice are loaded.

Oh, and # Bill Gates.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: soficrow

I suppose that the corporations will lobby for free 'health care' for robots, if the robots are required to pay taxes.

And when the robot breaks down, federal "workman's compensation" money would be made available to the corporations by the federal government until the robot is fixed.

a reply to: Kukri

i was gonna say didn't gates indirectly have a hand in robotics.

Bill Gates people.

That's made his fortune putting people out of work.

a reply to: soficrow

That is a good one, Sofi, robots paying taxes, but the irony is that they have to be given human status before they can do that, is a dangerous precedent behind that one and is not going to benefit humankind in anyway or form

But I will go farther than just trying to give robots human status, I think that the companies that sells them to the companies that use them should both be taxes the most.

a reply to: neo96

No only that but he was a big backer of insourcing and outsourcing jobs in the US, all to benefit his pockets and those of his share holders.

Before robots pay taxes they have to be paid a living wage people.

Then they need holiday pay,over time, and have to unionize.

After that vacation time, and workman comp, health insurance, and social security and medicare.

Cause Robots iz people!

For the love of Aqua Budda.

Funny the brainwashing about accepting Robots is in the making for a few years, now, Robot acquiring consciences, that will be the goal and why we could take them seriously.

The new ‘Humans,’ A TV Show About Robots, Is Really About Family, that is how is been presented to the viewers so it can start sinking deep in their subconscious.

Robots can be like humans, what better way than portraying beautiful people posing as look alike human robots.

Darn they are very attractive.

I'm always talking about needing a compromise now before this becomes a problem in the future. At least Bill is trying to do just that

a reply to: soficrow


Does good ole bill realize how many jobs his computers take from humans?

Can't wait to see how all this could be abused.

JFC, how come the government is the only one being paid in this scenario?

No thanks Mr.Baits

a reply to: soficrow

what utter twaddle - where do you draw the line

1 feller with a " job stealing chainsaw " can do the work of 50 lumberjacks with axes or 2 man saws

want the chainsaw to pay tax too ?

I'll tell you a really god idea I just thought of. Why don't they, say if a robot earns enough money for 10 people make the company take on 10 people to "service" the robot and the money the robot makes pays for the 10 peoples wages. Even if the 10 people sit about doing nothing.
OOOPPPS, that aint gonna work as the person that owns the company will say"it's my company so I get all the money made" just like a certain Mr Gates.
So now he's got his billions he wants to be altruistic. If he really wants to help keep say 500 million and give the rest to his workers. Including the guy that sweeps up.
But he wont do that will he.

I think some of us are interpreting this the wrong way. Nobody has to give robots some kind of rights or person hood status. We simply need to calculate the tax burden of the human workers machines replaced, and the company utilizing them will pay those levied taxes. A robot does not collect a check or get paid, so there are no wages to tax.

When humans start personifying machines and fighting each other over perceived mistreatment or rights violations of machines, the end of humanity will thus be just a hop skip away.

Not a terrible idea...

If we set up a progressive corporate tax system, wherein corporations pay a tax rate based on the number and average pay of non-management jobs versus profit margin, we will essentially have corporations paying taxes on automation. A nice side benefit to a tax plan that rewards corporations for making quality American jobs and penalizes them for overseas labor forces.

TheRedneck

For the man who i actually thought was brilliant by taking over a company and making millions!! that is even the most artarted statement i ever heard.