Should Robots Pay Taxes? Bill Gates Thinks so

It’s no secret that advancements in automation have the potential to displace labor currently performed by humans. Already, minimum-wage jobs in fast food restaurants are being threatened by touch-screen kiosks for ordering food, and self-driving vehicles loom on the horizon, worrying those who drive cars and trucks for a living. Further into the future, advancements in artificial intelligence have the potential to take over for even the intellectual and creative labor currently performed by people. Clearly, the nature of employment is set for a substantial shift throughout the next several decades.

Less clear are the long-term economic implications of this transition. Historically, developments in automation and machinery have not caused higher levels of unemployment; on the contrary, they’ve helped to increase overall wealth per capita, as the efficiency automation affords drives down the costs of goods, and those whose labor have been supplanted have been able to find employment in other domains as a consequence of naturally-occurring economic forces. But our society has yet to encounter a technological shift like the one that will come with developments in artificial intelligence and other unprecedented areas of computer science. As a result, previous historical models of the effects of technological change do a poor job of predicting what lies ahead.

Enter Bill Gates. In an interview with Quartz, the industry icon presented his perspective on the problems of uncertainty surrounding this issue. He notes that, despite the coming rise of machine labor, there nonetheless exist shortages in the areas of elder care, childhood education, and treatment of individuals with special needs. The fields that Gates recognizes are significant in two respects: they are unlikely to be replaced with machinery, as they require the uniquely human characteristics of empathy and understanding; and they are under-funded, as they deal with clientele who likely lack the financial resources to accommodate their needs.

As such, Gates sees the replacement of work with machinery not as an unpredictable economic threat, but as an opportunity to redirect human labor to help in these domains. Gates observes that if a worker in a factory makes $50,000, he is taxed accordingly, but if his job is replaced by a robot that does the same work, no income tax is paid, and the worker is out of a job. Therefore, Gates argues that robot labor should be taxed commensurately with the tax that would be performed by a human worker doing the same job and that the extra tax revenue generated by the increased efficiency of machinery should go towards funding the types of occupations that are socially necessary and that face shortage. This scheme also benefits the workers whose jobs are replaced by automation, as these workers have the opportunity to be re-trained in an area in which they must empathize with other human beings, leading to a more emotionally fulfilling occupation. And society as a whole benefits: not only do those with special needs receive the help they require but encouraging automation, instead of trying to fight it on the grounds that it’ll kill jobs, enables the growth of society’s overall wealth by making goods and services cheaper.

Certainly, this is an idealistic plan. Gates “[doesn’t] think that the robot companies are going to be outraged that there might be a tax,” but it’s likely that these companies, motivated by profit, will do whatever they can to fight legislation that requires them to pay more taxes. And attempts to implement this plan might be challenged by those who interpret it as enabling the proliferation of a welfare state. But this much is certain: in the face of a rapidly-evolving society, we need to spend time seriously examining changes in our lifestyles and our politics, and discussing plans like Gates’ is a necessary element of this process.

Featured Image via Wikimedia