.jpg){kind=avatar}
.jpg){kind=avatar}
In a recent interview Bill Gates has gone on record to express his opinion that robots and incoming artificial intelligence to businesses should be subject to taxation with the hopes of using the tax revenue to retain human workers. The economist has written as to why this might not be such a good idea in practice.
A robot is a capital investment, like a blast furnace or a computer. Economists typically advise against taxing such things, which allow an economy to produce more. Taxation that deters investment is thought to make people poorer without raising much money. But Mr Gates seems to suggest that investment in robots is a little like investing in a coal-fired generator: it boosts economic output but also imposes a social cost, what economists call a negative externality. Perhaps rapid automation threatens to dislodge workers from old jobs faster than new sectors can absorb them. That could lead to socially costly long-term unemployment, and potentially to support for destructive government policy. A tax on robots that reduced those costs might well be worth implementing, just as a tax on harmful blast-furnace emissions can discourage pollution and leave society better off.
unknownx500
