Bill Gates: Robots Should Pay Taxes

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
Is Bill onto something, or does he deserve to be pied again? The billionaire philanthropist believes that robots should get taxed like human workers as a means of slowing the spread of automation and funding. While he isn’t sure how the tax would be measured, he does urge that government should play an active role in the process.

…Gates believes that governments should tax companies’ use of them, as a way to at least temporarily slow the spread of automation and to fund other types of employment. It’s a striking position from the world’s richest man and a self-described techno-optimist who co-founded Microsoft, one of the leading players in artificial-intelligence technology. In a recent interview with Quartz, Gates said that a robot tax could finance jobs taking care of elderly people or working with kids in schools, for which needs are unmet and to which humans are particularly well suited. He argues that governments must oversee such programs rather than relying on businesses, in order to redirect the jobs to help people with lower incomes.
 
Drear Mr. Gates: Keep your silly comments to yourself. If you believe more taxes should be paid, pony up your own money and send it here:

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 6D37
Hyattsville, MD 20782

typical leftist, wants to use other people's money before their own....
 
typical leftist, wants to use other people's money before their own....

Yeah Microsoft is leftist entity ;) And you found Bill Gates comment odd ;)

Maybe Bill is trying to fit in some strange people making even stranger comments these days in the United States of America :) .
 
Drear Mr. Gates: Keep your silly comments to yourself. If you believe more taxes should be paid, pony up your own money and send it here:

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 6D37
Hyattsville, MD 20782

typical leftist, wants to use other people's money before their own....
He dose got point so what your beef ?, oh I know you maybe you just employment robot only maybe you should keep your own silly comments to yourself.
 
Drear Mr. Gates: Keep your silly comments to yourself. If you believe more taxes should be paid, pony up your own money and send it here:

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 6D37
Hyattsville, MD 20782

typical leftist, wants to use other people's money before their own....

Hi,
You do realize that the bill and melinda gates foundation give away BILLIONS of dollars around the world....right? At one point they were the 2nd most generous foundation on the planet.

People also ask

How much did Bill Gates donate in total?
Gates has put his money where his mouth is. He and his wife Melinda have so far given away $28 billion via their charitable foundation, more than $8 billion of it to improve global health.Jan 18, 2013


 
Drear Mr. Gates: Keep your silly comments to yourself. If you believe more taxes should be paid, pony up your own money and send it here:

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 6D37
Hyattsville, MD 20782

typical leftist, wants to use other people's money before their own....

Perhaps you should go back to making kids get off your lawn instead of posting nonsensical bullshit like that. If you feel that Gates is wrong, that's fine - but saying that he wants to use other people's money before his own is wrong at best and idiotic at worst. Dude spends plenty of his own money - more than you will ever see in 5 of your lifetimes. He is the absolute worst pick to base that comment off of.

To your (I presume) original point of Gates being wrong though, I think that *something* needs to be done. Most people aren't losing their jobs to immigrants or low skilled workers. They're losing them to robots. If those people lose their jobs, they've no money. If those people have no money, then they won't buy the things the company produces. If people won't buy what the company produces, they themselves will go bankrupt. Not in the short term, but definitely in the long term. If jobs are to be all performed by robots, I'm ok with it. But then all those people without a job will need some kind of basic income at the least. What solution is there? To stop automation, or to allow it but make the companies pay for it to fund those people without jobs as a direct result of it?
 
Leftist always think taxing is the solution. This sudden surge in automation, especially outside manufacturing sectors, was a direct result of the minimum wage push from the left. So now they want to force automation to be more expensive so that companies will hire overpriced humans for the same job. The more likely scenario ends with the company closing its doors and everyone losing.
 
He dose got point so what your beef ?, oh I know you maybe you just employment robot only maybe you should keep your own silly comments to yourself.

Hi,
You do realize that the bill and melinda gates foundation give away BILLIONS of dollars around the world....right? At one point they were the 2nd most generous foundation on the planet.

People also ask

How much did Bill Gates donate in total?
Gates has put his money where his mouth is. He and his wife Melinda have so far given away $28 billion via their charitable foundation, more than $8 billion of it to improve global health.Jan 18, 2013



Perhaps you should go back to making kids get off your lawn instead of posting nonsensical bullshit like that. If you feel that Gates is wrong, that's fine - but saying that he wants to use other people's money before his own is wrong at best and idiotic at worst. Dude spends plenty of his own money - more than you will ever see in 5 of your lifetimes. He is the absolute worst pick to base that comment off of.

To your (I presume) original point of Gates being wrong though, I think that *something* needs to be done. Most people aren't losing their jobs to immigrants or low skilled workers. They're losing them to robots. If those people lose their jobs, they've no money. If those people have no money, then they won't buy the things the company produces. If people won't buy what the company produces, they themselves will go bankrupt. Not in the short term, but definitely in the long term. If jobs are to be all performed by robots, I'm ok with it. But then all those people without a job will need some kind of basic income at the least. What solution is there? To stop automation, or to allow it but make the companies pay for it to fund those people without jobs as a direct result of it?


perhaps one day when you realize that my money is not your money, you will understand what the meaning is behind what I said. Bill Gate has shown himself to be very left leaning and he should just stick to spending his own money as he sees fit instead of telling the rest of us to pay more taxes.
 
perhaps one day when you realize that my money is not your money, you will understand what the meaning is behind what I said. Bill Gate has shown himself to be very left leaning and he should just stick to spending his own money as he sees fit instead of telling the rest of us to pay more taxes.

Pretty sure he didn't tell you to pay more taxes... but interpret however you want.
 
Pretty sure he didn't tell you to pay more taxes... but interrupt however you want.

are you sure? If I am the owner of said item, he sure as heck did tell me *I* have to pay more taxes.... let's not forget if I by anything that is made by a robot where that entity passes those taxes right along to the consumer... it is beyond common sense that corporations do not pay taxes, the people that buy or use their services do...

nice try though...
 
We aren't talking about c3po here, we are talking about machines that replace workers...like had been going on since the industrial revolution.

So should all machines that decrease the need for human labor be taxed?
 
people adapt for they don't make it. same thing happened when the auto was invented, plane, train, automated switching for phones, etc...
 
are you sure? If I am the owner of said item, he sure as heck did tell me *I* have to pay more taxes.... let's not forget if I by anything that is made by a robot where that entity passes those taxes right along to the consumer... it is beyond common sense that corporations do not pay taxes, the people that buy or use their services do...

nice try though...
But you aren't the owner of these and you don't understand his point. It's ok, sometimes people wear blinders associated with their party affiliation. It's not that I even agree with him, it's the outright he is an idiot leftist that makes me chuckle. You do understand that capital investments get favorable tax treatment, robotics eliminates "good jobs" as your president would say (such as Carriers plan to use that little bump they were given) and therefore reduces overall taxes. Yes it should make the company more profitable, but with the breaks there is no making up the difference. Plus we'll have a bunch of unskilled workers suddenly looking for hand outs (which need tax revenue), confused why all the "good jobs" went away when they had been preached it for so long...
 
Love these threads. Is this type of crazy common in the soapbox?

on topic: I fear a lot of people are going to really, really hate robots. I can already imagine something akin the second renaissance because of it with lots and lots of pissed off people.
 
Yeah I really doubt he owns any machines or has run any business the way Gates did.

Drear Mr. Gates: Keep your silly comments to yourself. If you believe more taxes should be paid, pony up your own money and send it here:

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 6D37
Hyattsville, MD 20782

typical leftist, wants to use other people's money before their own....
Also just wanna say that Trump should pay for his own flights and mini vacations as well. Just make sure you push that too, wouldn't want you to be biased.
 
Leftist? I find it humorous when Americans use these leftists, alt-right, main-stream media, etc. terms. American needs to understand that the kind of bat-shit crazy politics, which is currently going on in the US, doesn't fit the left / right spectrums the rest of the world is familiar with.
 
Love these threads. Is this type of crazy common in the soapbox?

on topic: I fear a lot of people are going to really, really hate robots. I can already imagine something akin the second renaissance because of it with lots and lots of pissed off people.

Personally I am fine with robots taking over everything. I think it could be pretty awesome.

The problem though is let's say *everything* is automatic, or at least large swaths of the industries are. Those people that don't have money will end up being a burden on society, including those companies because no one will have the cash to buy their product. But let's say that the money problem is fixed and everyone has a basic income and everyone has a great life. A new problem arises: Boredom.

That's when shit gets really crazy.
 
We aren't talking about c3po here, we are talking about machines that replace workers...like had been going on since the industrial revolution.

So should all machines that decrease the need for human labor be taxed?

You know it is an interesting question. Should computers be taxed? In the field I work in, I've been part of replacing people in file rooms with computer storage. In the good old days you needed 2-10 people to take care of the paper trails, rescan documents etc. Now that document is stored once and every one can get to it and that file room laid off most, if not all those people, so should the servers\storage arrays pay a tax based on the 2-8 people it replaced? Should the tax be based on money saved or the estimated wage itself would make?

are you sure? If I am the owner of said item, he sure as heck did tell me *I* have to pay more taxes.... let's not forget if I by anything that is made by a robot where that entity passes those taxes right along to the consumer... it is beyond common sense that corporations do not pay taxes, the people that buy or use their services do...

Well, not exactly. If you replaced 3 workers with a single robot. You are now saving 3 workers worth of wages. In turn you get a better worker, which normally does better\faster work. You were already paying for a wage tax\healthcare\etc on those 3 workers. Now you are paying those taxes on a single robot which should still be cheaper than paying 3 humans to do the job. So instead of saving 100,000 a year, you might only save 75,000. It should still be worth it to get the robot.

Not that I'm pro paying taxes for robots, but there is a concern\problem that is going to need to be addressed in the next 50 years. And this may be part of the solution.
 
Last edited:
Personally I am fine with robots taking over everything. I think it could be pretty awesome.

The problem though is let's say *everything* is automatic, or at least large swaths of the industries are. Those people that don't have money will end up being a burden on society, including those companies because no one will have the cash to buy their product. But let's say that the money problem is fixed and everyone has a basic income and everyone has a great life. A new problem arises: Boredom.

That's when shit gets really crazy.
Good point, although perhaps their time could be spent on new pursuits?
 
Good point, although perhaps their time could be spent on new pursuits?

New pursuits that will eventually also be automated? Where is the line drawn with what a person does vs what a robot will do for / instead of you?
 
Leftist? I find it humorous when Americans use these leftists, alt-right, main-stream media, etc. terms. American needs to understand that the kind of bat-shit crazy politics, which is currently going on in the US, doesn't fit the left / right spectrums the rest of the world is familiar with.

Everyone needs a label apparently.
 
Personally I am fine with robots taking over everything. I think it could be pretty awesome.

The problem though is let's say *everything* is automatic, or at least large swaths of the industries are. Those people that don't have money will end up being a burden on society, including those companies because no one will have the cash to buy their product. But let's say that the money problem is fixed and everyone has a basic income and everyone has a great life. A new problem arises: Boredom.

That's when shit gets really crazy.
Very few people live for their work, most rather be doing something else. And the ones whose life is their work are usually in jobs that can't be automated anyway. So I don't think the people being replaced by automation would mind loosing their menial jobs. And if someone does they can still do it as a hobby.
For example in the UAE they don't work for a living. The only difference is they're not using robots, they're using foreign workers. But in this regard it's irrelevant. They have universal basic income. And the worst I've seen is a few idiots killing themselves trying to drift. Or making sculptures out of their cars.
 
But you aren't the owner of these and you don't understand his point. It's ok, sometimes people wear blinders associated with their party affiliation. It's not that I even agree with him, it's the outright he is an idiot leftist that makes me chuckle. You do understand that capital investments get favorable tax treatment, robotics eliminates "good jobs" as your president would say (such as Carriers plan to use that little bump they were given) and therefore reduces overall taxes. Yes it should make the company more profitable, but with the breaks there is no making up the difference. Plus we'll have a bunch of unskilled workers suddenly looking for hand outs (which need tax revenue), confused why all the "good jobs" went away when they had been preached it for so long...


so you assume that taxes are a party issue? how about trying this on for size. When people suggest that others pay taxes, I am all for them putting their money where their mouth is first you know lead by example.... How do you specifically know I do not own any robotics?

your whole point is invalidated by your lack of facts as to whether or not I own a robot....

as for the tax issue, we don't need any more, we need serious accountability on what is already being collected and spent. As for Bill Gate's point it's not relevant as I pointed out earlier adapt for miss out.
 
so you assume that taxes are a party issue? how about trying this on for size. When people suggest that others pay taxes, I am all for them putting their money where their mouth is first you know lead by example.... How do you specifically know I do not own any robotics?

your whole point is invalidated by your lack of facts as to whether or not I own a robot....

as for the tax issue, we don't need any more, we need serious accountability on what is already being collected and spent.


It's hilarious when you cite lack of facts after suggesting Bill Gates, of all people, use his own money before telling others what to do with theirs.
 
It's hilarious when you cite lack of facts after suggesting Bill Gates, of all people, use his own money before telling others what to do with theirs.

he should NOT BE TELLING ANYONE what to do with their money. it is none of his business, what part of this are you having trouble with?

Not his money or not his business?
 
Bill is just like he us. He knows robots will ultimately kill all humans right? That said, taxing robot forces will only put us behind other nations who don't tax robots. Say hello to the skynet future. Think of the poor robots?
 
A robot is not a worker. It's not a person. It's just a device. A bipedal robot walking around building a house is no different from a drive through car wash. Technology has ALWAYS existed to replace the things a human can do. Are combine harvesters taxed because of all the field workers they put out of work? Of course not. Are clothes washing machines taxed because of all the house maid careers it destroyed. No

Who would represent this taxed "worker"? A human?

Emotionalism vs Realism is what this is about.

Keep in mind this is a man who grew up in a household where eugenics was considered a viable practice. You can still like him and appreciate him. Just keep an eye on him, that's all I'm saying.
 
so you assume that taxes are a party issue? how about trying this on for size. When people suggest that others pay taxes, I am all for them putting their money where their mouth is first you know lead by example.... How do you specifically know I do not own any robotics?

your whole point is invalidated by your lack of facts as to whether or not I own a robot....

as for the tax issue, we don't need any more, we need serious accountability on what is already being collected and spent. As for Bill Gate's point it's not relevant as I pointed out earlier adapt for miss out.
I'm not for taxing people/businesses/anyone for no reason but in essence they are replacing workers that DO pay taxes for a robot. This is one case where they should say "ok your replacing 3 workers with 1 robot, please pay us the lost tax revenue from firing your meat bags and hiring robots", in all honestly the company is not losing ANY money as its all taxes they would of been paying regardless but they save in wage's and make more in increased production. What I dont agree with is the ideology of "we shall tax you 30% of all profits to penalize you for having robot workers" as that is a bull crap system.
 
Hmmm, Bill is missing the fact that with human workers, a company has to contribute to social security. I know social security does not have an infinite lifespan but robots replacing human workers will just accelerate the demise of social security. (In the end, it will be anarchy so whatever.)
 
I'm not for taxing people/businesses/anyone for no reason but in essence they are replacing workers that DO pay taxes for a robot. This is one case where they should say "ok your replacing 3 workers with 1 robot, please pay us the lost tax revenue from firing your meat bags and hiring robots", in all honestly the company is not losing ANY money as its all taxes they would of been paying regardless but they save in wage's and make more in increased production. What I dont agree with is the ideology of "we shall tax you 30% of all profits to penalize you for having robot workers" as that is a bull crap system.


well they better start taxing the crap out of cars, especially the specific one you drive since it was partially assembled by robots thus replacing a multitude of workers...
 
New pursuits that will eventually also be automated? Where is the line drawn with what a person does vs what a robot will do for / instead of you?
Eh i was thinking arts. But yeah it's limited
 
We live in an age of unprecedented productivity, with the digital revolution making the industrial revolution seem tame in comparison; yet the gains of technological advancement is going to fewer and fewer hands, further consolidating power over all aspects of human life into the hands of megalomanic despots hiding behind smoke and mirrors.

Bill Gates may be a sociopath, but even a broken clock is right two times a day. The problems are only going to grow exponentially worse over the century — it is not a question of if, only when.

2rnbv55.png
 
It's hilarious when you cite lack of facts after suggesting Bill Gates, of all people, use his own money before telling others what to do with theirs.
When you look at it in proportion to his wealth he's not giving more money to charities than the average person. So I don't see why he gets a get out of jail free card based on that for every stupid idea he comes up with.

And this is a stupid idea. Because it suggests "hey let's make robots artificially less attractive to industry, so Joe Unfortunate can continue scrubbing the sewers with his hands" Instead of giving Joe a basic income and letting a robot do it which has no soul and can't feel miserable.
 
Problem is the tax would have to be global or you're gimping American industries again...
 
Bill has a point in that automation and robots are reaching a point that they are displacing our labor force faster than they are aging out. To make that transition and retrain or raise the level of education of your work force, the money has to come from somewhere. His argument is that government should consider looking into a tax, instead of relying on the good will of businesses to pay for retraining a labor force they just axed.

Obviously a tax like this can easily be abused and get way out of hand, but that does not mean it shouldn't be considered.
 
We're clearly coming to a point in our society where we're going to have to grapple with some huge issues.

As a tech guy that is also fairly fiscally conservative it is intriguing to see this situation where automation will obviously one day take over the most jobs yet people need to eat, pay the rent, etc (yeah, how liberal of me). The other side of this coin that the near sighted conservative never thinks of is that they need consumers with money to buy their companies products and services which used to be their employees. We've already cut ourselves off at the knees before with moving production oversees and outsourcing. In their great folly many companies in search of short term easy profit boosts shipped our jobs to other countries causing many to be out of work or forced to take lower paying work hurting the purchasing power of the very people they want buying the products that are now having to be shipped back here, at considerable expense I might add (the true savings of offshore mfg is debatable). The real winner here is China and other countries who got tons of jobs giving their citizens money and strengthening their economy while we stagnate. Oh yeah, eventually those foreign workers pay had to increase, as it was bound to, and now some of this has been reversing. This is all very short sighted and unpatriotic to me. Capitalism is great, but we need to be smart in how we practice it, perhaps with a bit more nationalism, foresight, and a bit less borderline treasonous behavior in the pursuit of a marginal profit surge. Further to our national interest we need to make sure the new automated production facilities are here. Made here, taxed here, protected here. You never know when the next war or political dilemma will cause major trade issues.


TLDR: Economics is complicated. We have to be smart. And yes one day we'll probably be forced to pay everyone money to not work because robots will be doing most of it.
 
Back
Top