Automation increases the gap between rich and poor, and a robot tax may be a good solution

Source：Updated：2017-10-23 08:23:06

From that point of view, Bill Gates, along with a number of people who are also concerned about the subject, said it would take a tax on robots to cut back on the impact. The point of view of economists, however, is not the same, they think that automation will increase the gap between rich and poor, and robot "tax" will be a good way of regulating, but also not be the best solution.
 
Automation increases the gap between rich and poor, and a "robot tax" may be a good solution
 
If companies use robots (or other artificial intelligence tools) in the future to engage in productive activity, the clamor for a tax on robots is growing. Behind this is simple, the robot's use, will reduce a lot of jobs, lots of workers will lose their jobs, the government's tax would be reduced, and the unemployed workers will also be the burden on the government public utilities.
 
For this reason, Bill Gates supports a robot tax to compensate for the loss of government revenue. "Tax increases, even if it inhibits the pace of automation," he said. If robots and humans do the same thing, we should impose a similar tax on robots."
 
In a report last summer, the European Parliament scoffed at the robot tax. However, Nobel laureate Robert Shiller believes that serious consideration should be given. San Francisco politician Jane Kim even set up a committee to discuss the issue. At the national level, South Korea has implemented a robotics tax: it has lowered the number of tax breaks for robotics companies.
 
Others say robots will have an impact on employment and income inequality.
 
Automation increases the gap between rich and poor, and a "robot tax" may be a good solution
In fact, increasing inequality is a good reason to worry about robots. If a lot of robots are used, some people will have jobs and some will not have jobs. Obviously, this will make the income gap bigger and bigger. Of course, inequality has increased significantly. But whether this is caused by automation is a matter of intense debate among economists.
 
A new paper from economists Joao Guerreiro and Sergio Rebelo, from northwestern university, and Pedro Teles of Portugal's central bank, argue that inequality will rise in a world where jobs are scarce. It's thinking about automation becoming cheaper, which will allow companies to cut back pay to workers. There are robots, and in industries with high levels of automation, wages will fall. It is clear that this is very inconsistent with the lower levels of automation and rising wages.
 
"In the case of the us, if the current tax system is not changed, the sharp fall in automation costs will lead to a substantial increase in income inequality. Even if ordinary workers keep their jobs, their wages will be lower because of automation."
 
Economists have proposed taxing devices that replace conventional work, while increasing individual income tax for high earners (who still have jobs). In some ways, that undermines the attractiveness of companies to adopt new machines, and reduces after-tax income differentials between high and low earners.
 
But they say this approach will reduce social benefits over time. Because even for low-income people, automation is a double-edged sword. While robots may make people lose their jobs, the emergence of new machines, the rise in production levels, is good for everyone.
 
Higher productivity leads to economic growth. Under the same conditions, more jobs and wage growth will be created. "Taxing robots will discourage companies from using them, which often leads to lower production levels," Rebelo said. "So, once fully automated, taxing robots is not the best option."
 
As the economy toward the direction of "fully automated", economists say, if we set out to assign "disposable income", or the lowest basic income, so on the economic efficiency will be higher - that is, is good for everybody.
 
Economists disagree with Mr Gates's view that the "tax on robots to compensate for the government's lost wage tax". Once a robot becomes a way of life - in every warehouse, factory, and office - it's no longer viable. Instead, the government needs to transfer "a certain amount of money to all agents in the economy, regardless of their occupation or income," Rebelo said.
 
Although this paper is a bit theoretical, the message it conveys is very practical. If widespread automation will exacerbate income inequality, then we need to consider how to reallocate economic resources. Economists say this is either a tax or a social benefit like basic income.