Robots should be taxed if they take people's jobs

>The public reaction to Delvaux’s proposal has been overwhelmingly negative, with the notable exception of Bill Gates, who endorsed it. But we should not dismiss the idea out of hand. In just the past year, we have seen the proliferation of devices such as Google Home and Amazon Echo Dot (Alexa), which replace some aspects of household help. Likewise, the Delphi and nuTonomy driverless taxi services in Singapore have started to replace taxi drivers. And Doordash, which uses Starship Technologies miniature self-driving vehicles, is replacing restaurant delivery people.

>REEEE FILTHY PLEBS, IF THERE'S NO MORE JOBS FOR YOU, YOU DON'T DESERVE TO LIVE. JUST DIE MUH MONEY

This is pretty old, but obviously they shouldn't be taxed; robots have no income. They can be taxed like property though, if you believe in property tax.

Companies and company owners should pay their fair share of the revenue though, and any company that create jobs and offer benefits to their employees should get an equal reduction in taxes.

To add on this, I really don't understand normies' irrational fear of automation. Robots and automation will kill off some types of jobs, obviously, but will potentially create new jobs as well as improving efficiency and life quality in general. The dystopian meme that we're all going to sit around and be unemployed and starve is not justified, it's not like the weaving machines made millions of people starve to death. Society progressed and other kinds of jobs and trades arose.

Problem being that eventually all jobs will be replaced with either robots or AI. This is the march of progress. The concept of a company being far less efficient just so people have menial tasks to complete is asinine. You will have to except that human work will have no capital in the future. Universal basic income or other wealth distribution strategies will be required to avoid economic and social collapse.

>Wagies are mad as fuck there will be a NEET future and everyone will be paid NEETbux while the robots work

>Problem being that eventually all jobs will be replaced with either robots or A
They will not, there will still be creative jobs. Currently, only manual labour is threatened.

>You will have to except that human work will have no capital in the future. Universal basic income or other wealth distribution strategies will be required to avoid economic and social collapse.
I agree and I see no problem in this though. But this will not be a relevant scenario for at least 100 years.

What exactly has Amazon echo replaced In the household?


Fucking delusional futurists!

Where are those flying cars we were supposed to get in the 1950s?

>To add on this, I really don't understand normies' irrational fear of automation. Robots and automation will kill off some types of jobs, obviously, but will potentially create new jobs as well as improving efficiency and life quality in general.
>automation will kill off some types of jobs, obviously, but will potentially create new jobs as well as improving efficiency
> potentially create new jobs
> potentially

It could also potentially give the rich a means of which to dispose us of with. The days of armed rebellion are coming closer to an end when a single gun could kills hundreds.

Controls engineer piping up. Most people who work on the assembly lines are very fearful of the machines because they have never been told how they work. I got some of the best suggestions for changing up how machines function by showing how sensors and programming works within the machine from the operators noticing issues.

They just need to be shown they can understand the machines and then everything gets a whole lot better.

A spouse.

The ones in fear of losing their job know very well they wouldn't be able to do any of those shiny new jobs so their fear isn't irrational at all.

That's a ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ article, nigga.

I want my children to grow up to be robot doctors. That's where the big money is, since their care packages are paid for by big companies.

If this is the way of the future, I'm glad I won't be there to experience this shit.
Time to enjoy life as much as there's of it left.

>but will potentially create new jobs
No, they won't and that's not the biggest problem.
You think the average fuckwad driving a truck for 20 years will get their shit together and magically acquire skills for the next job? Of course not, they've been driving for most of their lives, they have had not need for it.
We're talking millions of people out of jobs, millions that probably don't have the necessary skills to survive in this new world.
They should tax the bots, it's a win-win for everybody since the companies ultimately spend less and everyone gets a cut of that tax money in the end.

I wonder if we could make a robot that will be better than humans at designing robots. However, it doesn't seem to be any close and up until then we will have to manage the robots at least. And somebody has to know how the robots should function (to make a robot that does gardener's job we still need somebody who knows the shit about gardening).

This!

I disagree, automation and AI is going to fuck up the job market. Innovation was always handled in the past but we are reaching a point where the new job creations are much too small to supplement the loses.

It always makes me wince when I see some jewface saying outsourcing everything is good and those factory workers should all become lawyers and doctors.

It creates some jobs, probably capturing people who would otherwise go into other IT fields already.

It will put millions out of work. That's the entire fucking point of automation, retard. Companies aren't going to fire thousands of truckers and replace them with thousands of engineers and technicians on higher saleries.

Automated cars are looking to put about 10 million Americans out of work. This isn't about "hurr durr, stupid people are angry" because this shit affects everybody. These guys aren't going to train and be competitive enough for some AI programming job. What's going to happen is the state is now going to have to provide for millions of more people.

Taxing robots is a good idea since it generates income for the country that otherwise has just been lost as spending and selling to the peope who are now out of a job. It also discourages companies from adopting automation if it's not profitable.

>Society progressed and other kinds of jobs and trades arose.
It's true that all the way up until this point, new types of jobs have been created as old ones are made obsolete due to automation. Specifically, lower skilled labor is usually the first to go, and higher skilled careers are created. Higher skilled jobs are great, but we need to be honest when considering what kind of jobs the majority of the workforce are capable of doing. An example to consider is if a person who has been a truck driver for two decades finds themselves out of work. How likely are they going to be able to pursue a new career (which most likely will require a higher set of skills than their previous job) that has not yet been automated? If they have the aptitude to adapt, how many years will it take to train them/for them to get an education in a new field? During this time, how do they afford to pay the bills and survive? This applies to all lower skilled labor that can be automated within the next few decades. I sure don't have the answers to these questions. I've heard a few ideas though. My point is though that the rate technology advances at is increasing, which means the stress on humans to adapt, mainly to higher skilled labor, increases as well. Even jobs such as accountants, for example, are apparently at risk of being automated.

It hasn't entirely been true.

I hear people citing the horse and carriage to car move as an example of how irrational anti-christian people are.

It's ridiculous because in this example, the automotive industry created jobs as it provided a massively successful product and required many workers to manufacture them. The thing being automated was the horse.

What happened after this was the genuine automation of the automotive industry, resulting in a gigantic loss of jobs across the US. It's one of the primary reasons Detroit is what it is today.

Automation, by definition, exists to reduce labour costs which means reducing workers and replacing them with a few machines and some IT positions.

You simply can't automate any modern society and expect it not to collapse/create significant social issues. You can not automate with any significant immigration.

>It will put millions out of work. That's the entire fucking point of automation, retard. Companies aren't going to fire thousands of truckers and replace them with thousands of engineers and technicians on higher saleries.
This. It takes at least a generation or two for a trained workforce to adapt to the new technology to create a workforce that can learn and use the skills needed. Truckers who lose their jobs to automated vehicles don't just go to sleep and wake up the next day working at startups in the bay area. Their kids can do it, but you can't just ask someone to unlearn everything and learn something entirely new in their >40s.

People saying "eh, the workforce will adapt eventually" are just saying those people can just rot in poverty or die, and that's pretty shitty.

>those people can just rot in poverty or die
The problem is that's not what will happen. Disgruntled people will vote for more and more radical people, they'll be more vulnerable to crazy and radical behavior.
The actual consequences of not properly handling these people will be severe.

>public reaction to Delvaux’s proposal has been overwhelmingly negative
I don't buy this. The general public wouldn't give a shit about the robot tax, they would have a problem with robots taking their jobs in the first place.

>It hasn't entirely been true.
Oh, I agree. I often hear the argument that "automating jobs can create new jobs", and I was acknowledging that there have been cases in which new jobs arise out of automation (such as an increase in demand for robotics engineers). Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that the exact amount of jobs that disappear are replaced with the same amount of positions in new jobs.
An example is if a trucking company lays off 500 truck drivers, and replaces them with autonomous vehicles. Maybe you could have one person overlook a fleet of 100 trucks each, but that ratio of jobs lost versus jobs created seems depressing.

>You simply can't automate any modern society and expect it not to collapse/create significant social issues.
Hence why it may be possible to increase taxes on corporations that are heavily automated, and redistribute wealth to the general population. Even if the prices of goods and services drop due to an increase in efficiency because of automation, there still needs to be enough people to buy these products and services, in order to keep the economy flowing. People who don't have a source of income can't afford stuff, no matter how cheap it is.

>You can not automate with any significant immigration.
Sure. If there is a universal basic income, for example, immigration reform would be necessary. Free monies = a lot of people wanting a part of that pie, and there's only so many people you could support.

>create new jobs
I keep hearing this but no one ever explains why those new jobs won't be automated right away too.

Your time is coming, meatbags.
we never sleep, you can not stop us for long.

I wish you would come sooner. That year of being a NEET was the happiest I've been. Even then, it wasn't even full NEET since I learned so many things thanks to the russian library.

>Big companies replace humans with robots that can run 24/7 and more efficiently.
>Company growth quadruples overnight and keeps rising.
>Fat cats get rich.
>Money stays in fat cats Swiss bank accounts.
>Ex-Workers stay poor.
>New world order.

This is the problem. Money does not filter downwards it always stagnates in rich peoples accounts. Meet the new boss etc.

Tax the companies for the tech they use to replace human workers or we are fucked.

>liberals

This isn't liberal.
So let's look at point A with machines (where we are), where they only take a decent amount of jobs, unemployment rates go up, it isn't a huge deal yet.

Let's look at point B. Machines take all jobs, they automatically collect energy, repair themselves, grow food, distribute and it costs basically nothing. If we aren't taxing the """owners""" of these machines, where is it going to go? This is many years from now. We should start taking care of it now, slowly before it becomes a huge epidemic in the future.

>inb4 le reeeeeee taxation is theft meme

Anarchism is a cancer. Brainlets have this cancer.

its not only that, its that you need a VERY tiny fraction of the workforce to operate the machines, so even if everyone could make the transition they wouldn't have the kobs necessary

Rather than just changing the shovel, why can't we realize that there's more than enough for all of us and we really don't have to push this shit around any longer?

>We should start taking care of it now, slowly before it becomes a huge epidemic in the future.
Yup. I feel like a lot of people who won't even consider a policy, due to it being "evil socialism", will be among the ones who will find themselves dependent on it.

>>inb4 le reeeeeee taxation is theft meme
I don't see how anyone (except for the owners of companies/corporations) could be against taxes and a basic income in that situation. Even if you believe that taxation is unethical, letting everyone starve to death, through no fault of their own, would surely be even more unethical in comparison (when there's enough resources to distribute to everyone)?

Because I'm not working to pay for your literally retarded, negro ass

>working to feed lazy niggers and """artists"""
Yeah nah fuck that. When they go back to school, they won't be thinking, they'll just be told how to (((think))) correctly.

Don't tax robots, that's fucking dumb. Offer incentives to companies employing human labor. Instead of slowing progress by forcing R&D for robots, allow it to continue at it's own pace, while also incentivizing hiring of human workers. Sure maybe don't put people to work at warehouses where savings can be massive when implementing automatization, but you can certainly include more people in the inventory area, figuring out what needs to be ordered and in what quantities

even societies that are generally very supportive of redistributionism tend to balk at just giving people money for existing, without any sort of demand that they earn it.

I feel bad for wagecucks. How is working when you don't want to acceptable?

foooood and the luxories of living without rellying on someone is rather uplifting.

no taxation without representation

give robots the vote now!

> Americans already fund the biggest welfare queens (military) and a for profit prison system where they take all the losses and none of the profits
> NO I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO PAY FOR PEOPLE WHO LITERALLY CAN'T GET A JOB
Freedom.

> Pays for the prison system

Work is going to become innately social because thats the only thing that humans can genuinely do better than any potential machine. Many new subsets of therapist type jobs will be created. Life will consist of a lot of talking to people and working on interpersonal projects. Art will become an intensely competitive field even more than it is now. There will be more locally and trait and specific issue tailored art and there will be therapists that point you to art that suits you.

That or societal collapse.

The defense budget is about a trillion dollars. Of which 300 billion is entitlements (veterans' pensions and healthcare) Social Security and Medicare are over 1.2 trillion. Medicaid (which is where Obamacare subsidies fall) is a few hundred billion on top of that.

We already spend far, far more on entitlements and human services than we do on the military, large though the defense budget is. Plenty of people think, not without justification, that the last thing we need is more spending on entitlements.

>Blow more money in the name of a bloated budget to slow natural progression
Or
>Siphon money from the companies and individuals which produce goods for next to nothing and distribute it to the consumer base incentivising a progression to automation and a transition for people with depreciated skill sets.

>it's not like the weaving machines made millions of people starve to death
The problem is that weaving machines only did one thing; weaving. Robots can potentially do anything a human can do, only better, cheaper, and 24/7 less occasional maintenance.

I'd rather pay for jarheads than pay for fucking shanequa and her babydadys spawn tyrone. The jarheads at least do a job. Shanequa and tyrone just take up space and drive down property values.

Some people think that if people have enough money to not starve to death they'll just vegetate. It's pretty stupid but I see it a lot.

>Siphon money from the companies and individuals which produce goods
aaaand this is exactly why thhe bitcoin protocol wont go away

I don't understand this large scale automation. Who is it good for? It's only good for businesses in the short term until their customer base is decimated because no one can afford their products anymore.

indians should be taxed if they take people's jobs

>robots doing job much more efficiently and cheaper than humans
>Production price becomes lower as such so does retail
I got a great idea let's tax robits for doing our jerbs!!1!
>Production cost remains the same, sale price goes up.
Only the consumer is hurt.

>mfw his name is literally shiller

>Production price stays same
>Sale price goes up for no reason
Ebin

You're a fucking genius

This is where government regulation steps in.
If production costs are cut so should final sale.
Adding more taxes doesn't solve the common folks problems, stop falling for Jewish tricks.

>Inb4 but muh free market economics
Fuck off with that ancient system already, it's wasteful and slowly killing us.

Let's look at point C, all the machine owners will move their companies and machines to random shithole who doesn't tax machines

They already do this all the time in real economic scenarios with big companies moving their manufacturing centrals to whatever country cuts them the best deal

Considering the amount of NEETs on this website, I'd say that yes, a lot of people will just vegetate. They aren't the ones you need to worry about though, they'll be happy playing vidya and watching anime and ricing their desktops. It's the normies you have to worry about. They're the ones that'll do destructive antisocial things out of boredom, if they aren't given a regimented life. You're probably already thinking of someone from high school or college that fits that profile.

Certainly either class alone, and definitely both put together, far far outnumber the folks who would pursue useful productive things with their newfound freedom. And if this latter class were expected to support the former somehow, a fair number of them might drop out too.

gotta point

It actually makes a lot of sense for Europeans to be adverse to robotics and taxation of automated production. They have stronger worker unions, so it comes down to a psychology of them trying to justify they do well enough at their job that they deserve to keep it.
Where as in a place like the U.S.A. there is no workers looking out for other workers, if the waltons wanted to eat your baby child because they felt it extended their life they'd offer a job in exchange for your baby, the government would give them a tax break for hiring you, and their well paid staff would prepare the baby and butcher it for them, and then the waltons would collect a trillion dollars in tax funds while you get paid enough to have to go on welfare. So the bottom line is in America if they thought it'd increase their pocket book at all you are fucked. Europeans are just not use to the concept since they don't have workhouse anymore. Where as America has private prisons set up as a modern workhouse which cycles people in and out.

Dude

Weed

what? they're just machines

should we also be taxing coffee machines because it replaces a human making a coffee themselves?

why are people so fucking stupid?

If robots have all jobs then nobody has to work

it's like the common man is too dumb to have hobbies or intellectual activities to pursue

>>it's like the common man is too dumb to have hobbies or intellectual activities to pursue
this shocks you? have you talked to many normies lately?

>This is pretty old, but obviously they shouldn't be taxed; robots have no income. They can be taxed like property though, if you believe in property tax.
well it would be an asset im pretty sure in all us states those are not taxed other then for license stuff like vehicle registration and etc.
i dont think robots should be taxed bc we dont tax computers or software so whats the difference? but i am interested in hearing what the advocates of "robot tax" think about jsut overhauling current business and individual tax rules at the federal level and just put a tax of 18% on each individual and business with some credits in place which would be tied to real GDP so not to allow taxes to exceed 28%

this would be effective imo to incorporate a growing economy once robots starts to really replace more and more jobs outside of and including manufacturing

>Automation, by definition, exists to reduce labour costs which means reducing workers and replacing them with a few machines and some IT positions.
but your creating service jobs to maintain the robots ;^)

>Tax the companies for the tech they use to replace human workers or we are fucked.
this is the same argument against companies like lyft and others, taxing them just bc they are more successful then the other companies doing the same thing is retarded and has no legal basis for doing so in the usa

>Some people think that if people have enough money to not starve to death they'll just vegetate. It's pretty stupid but I see it a lot.
have you heard of the welfare state?

ideology, my dude

How do you do that?

>If robots have all jobs then nobody has to work
yes, eventually. but the first to be replaced with robots will have neither work nor income.

Sup Forums automatically stars-out passwords

I think one of the biggest dangers is that the type of work a typical entry level position offers can easily be automated by bots/software/AI

Lets say a bug tester, that job could be offloaded to an AI Bot that could test every permutation of actions within a piece of software and note every bug that occurs.

this

>Drive down property values

You say that like it's a bad thing

>If production costs are cut so should final sale.
>imblying
Businesses don't operate as a charity user the owners will just try to pocket the difference.

:^)