Would taxing robots help the people whose jobs they'll take?

Bill Gates recently offered a simple solution to the problem of automation: Tax the robots. But that premise raises several thorny issues.

Alastair Grant/AP
Charllotte Abbot shakes hands with Pepper, an interactive French-Japanese robot, at the Robots exhibition in the Science Museum in London on Feb. 7, 2017. The exhibition which shows 500 years of mechanical and robotic advances is open to the public form Feb. 8 through to Sept. 3.

Automation may soon affect even industries and jobs we thought were immune, so what should countries do to prepare for those left jobless and behind? Bill Gates recently offered a simple solution: Tax the use of robots. He argues that such a tax would both “temporarily slow down the spread of automation” and fund social safety net programs for those who lose their jobs to technology.

Gates is not the only one to suggest the idea. French presidential candidate Benoit Hamon of the Socialist Party recently proposed a universal basic income partially funded by a robot tax. The European parliament also just voted down a proposal to fund support for workers who lost their jobs due to “robotics and AI” through a robot tax.

While it is of vital public policy interest to support technology-displaced workers, the premise of a tax on the use of robots raises several thorny issues. One is the difficulty of specifying which kinds of robotic automation should be taxed, and more generally, what counts as a robot.

What distinguishes a machine we now accept as integral to economic productivity from a robot whose activity we would wish to tax? Washing machines, for example, certainly put many launderers out of work, but they also helped make it possible for millions of women to join the paid workforce. A robot tax, as Gates proposed, may end up being a tax on innovation and would force Congress and the IRS to make the perhaps impossible distinction between labor-saving machines and labor-enhancing ones.  

Taxing robots would also fundamentally change the way the United States currently taxes business investment. Instead of treating equipment as a depreciating asset for which a firm takes a deduction in computing its taxable income, Gates would single out a subset of these investments for a new tax.

There is also debate among economists over whether robots and automation significantly impacts employment. While a report by researchers at Oxford University estimated 54 percent of jobs in the EU are at risk of “computerization,” another report by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development last year estimated only 9 percent of jobs in 21 OECD countries are automatable.

And although automation certainly has it losers – the American steel industry lost 75 percent of its work force between 1962 and 2005 – the creation of new types of jobs and industries may mean that overall employment is not significantly affected. A recent paper from Georg Graetz of Uppsala University found that industrial robots had no significant effect on overall employment, meaning the total number of hours worked by people in a country stayed around the same even when the use of those devices increased.

For those left permanently behind by the technological revolution, these facts will understandably be of little comfort. Taxing robots and other technical advances, however, will not make the human consequences of automation and robotics go away.

This story originally appeared on TaxVox.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Would taxing robots help the people whose jobs they'll take?
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today