Based on the arguments of Brian Christian and Bill Gates, robot taxes have been proposed as a solution to the problem of job losses, but there is debate about their effectiveness, their potential to stifle technological progress, and the difficulty of implementing them in different countries.
Brian Christian argues that humans need to find the jobs that only humans can do and develop them. Simple, repetitive tasks can now be taken over by robots, which means that humans should focus on the things that only humans can do. As Christian says, robots can do simple, repetitive tasks better than humans without making mistakes. But what about the people who did those jobs in the first place? They might think about switching to another field as their jobs are increasingly replaced by robots. However, retraining and getting a new job is easier said than done.
Bill Gates has proposed a “robot tax” as a solution to the problem of job loss. It’s a tax on robots, but it’s not yet possible for robots to pay taxes themselves, so the tax would be levied on the people or companies that own them. Bill Gates mentioned a robot tax because it could be used to provide welfare benefits to people who lose their jobs and retrain them for new jobs. There have been concerns about the loss of jobs due to robots, and Bill Gates’ proposal has sparked debate on the topic. Here’s where I stand on the robot tax. No matter how many new jobs are created, there is a high probability of job loss, and we need to do something about it, but I think there are many problems with a robot tax.
Before making the case for a robot tax, it’s important to define what we mean by “robots” in this article. Artificial intelligence (AI) and robots are not the same thing. Many robots can perform many tasks without using AI. For example, a programmed robot can assemble parts that are in a specific location. However, if the parts are not in the correct position or if they are stacked on top of each other, assembly is difficult. On the other hand, an AI robot can fetch the necessary parts and assemble them just like a human. Based on these examples, it’s not just robots that people are worried about losing their jobs, but AI robots. And as AI and robots develop, many robots are using AI. Therefore, for the purposes of this article, we will consider robots as AI robots.
One of the arguments in favor of a robot tax is that it would prevent wealth from being concentrated. The loss of low-income jobs in the service industry will increase income and wealth polarization. A robot tax could help reduce this polarization. In addition, various policies for the unemployed are needed, and the costs associated with this will be borne by those with increased income or productivity. Much of the increase in income and productivity is related to the use of robots. Therefore, a robot tax could be considered a reasonable option. The European Parliament has also mentioned a robot tax in a report submitted by Maidy Delbo, a member of the Social Democratic and Progressive Alliance. According to her, the introduction of artificial intelligence robots will significantly change the labor market, and we need to think about taxation. She argues that basic income alone may not be enough to fund this, and a robot tax could compensate for this. Of course, the European Parliament has yet to adopt a robot tax, and some political parties have opposed it, but the report’s findings and the fact that the European Parliament has defined artificial intelligence robots as “electronic humans” suggest that many people are in favor of the idea.
The argument in favor of a robot tax is that it will not result in job losses, meaning that more jobs will be created than lost. Some argue that technological innovation has never led to job losses in the past during the Industrial Revolution. In the fourth industrial revolution, it’s possible that machines will replace not only simple jobs, but also various specializations. However, in every industrial revolution, humans have always found new jobs based on their unmet needs, and this time, we will be able to find new jobs and make a living. However, the pace of the Fourth Industrial Revolution is fast, so it may take longer to find new jobs. People with this opinion will be less concerned about job losses and less likely to see the need for a robot tax. However, I do not believe that jobs will not be lost. There will be a bigger change in jobs, different from what we’ve seen so far, and we need a way to address the jobs problem.
We don’t know for sure whether robots will create many new jobs or eliminate many jobs. Different people have different predictions, and no one can accurately guess what the future holds. However, it is clear that people who used to have jobs are likely to lose them. We need a policy for the unemployed. No matter how many new jobs are created, they won’t help the unemployed. Also, jobs will change in a different way than in the past. Whereas before, simple, repetitive jobs were disappearing, now we’re seeing the loss of service jobs. Of course, many of the new jobs will be in services. However, according to a report from the World Economic Forum, there will be many more jobs that will be lost. I can only speculate about the future, but if robots take over all service jobs, it would mean that a lot more people will be out of work than in the past. So I can understand the concern about the future and the reasons behind the introduction of a robot tax, and I think it is necessary to find a solution. However, as I mentioned earlier, there are many problems with a robot tax. I’m not against a robot tax, but I think there are a lot of things that need to be discussed before a robot tax is introduced.
First of all, I think we need to have clear criteria for any law. So far, many machines have replaced human jobs. Of course, as AI robots develop, more jobs may disappear in various fields. However, there has never been a tax on machines that have replaced human jobs. Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Larry Summers opposed a robot tax on the grounds that robots, as well as other machines, have replaced human jobs, but were not taxed. For example, the use of tractors instead of oxen and horses in agriculture led to a large decline in the farming population, and the advent of the loom put many people out of work. The development of computers has replaced many repetitive jobs. However, tractors, looms, and computers were not taxed. In order to tax robots, we need to have clear criteria for how to define them and what they are. There needs to be a discussion about how to define robots and what to call them. We also need to decide whether to tax only robots that replace specific jobs (e.g., in the service industry) or all robots. And we need to be clear about how robots are different from computers and machines, which have not been taxed before. I don’t think a robot tax that simply taxes robots is appropriate.
A robot tax could also stifle technological progress. Some may argue that the tax is not intended to hinder the development of robots. However, the nature of the tax will not help the development of AI and robots. Even if the intention is not to do so, taxes are likely to stifle robot development. A robot tax would focus on human jobs rather than robotics-related technologies, which could stifle robot advancement. Consider the past: what would have happened if we had taxed the looms, computers, and many other machines mentioned above? If we taxed them because they were replacing people’s jobs, we wouldn’t have the technological progress we have today.
Of course, technological progress isn’t always good, but I disagree with the argument that we need to curb it a bit to prevent job losses. There are many repetitive tasks that are currently done by humans that can be done more easily with technology. It would be better for humans to leave these repetitive and laborious tasks to robots or machines and focus on the things that only humans can do. In other words, it is inefficient to oppose technological progress in order to keep the repetitive jobs you currently have.
Furthermore, it’s difficult for all countries to implement a robot tax at the same time. If only a few countries implemented a robot tax, those countries would be left behind in the advancement of robotics. James Besson, a professor of economics at Boston University, said that a robot tax would actually delay the creation of new jobs. His argument is that the more robots and technology develop, the faster new jobs will be created.
Also, the situation varies by country. South Korea has high labor costs compared to China and other countries in Southeast Asia. Instead of utilizing robots, companies that are more human-centered often move their operations overseas. This is because they want to operate in countries with cheaper labor costs. This makes it harder for South Koreans to get jobs. On the other hand, companies that use robots are more likely to keep their companies in South Korea because they don’t need cheaper labor. Of course, this deprives South Koreans of simple jobs that robots can do. However, it is better to have many jobs remain than to have the company leave the country altogether. Since humans can do complex tasks that robots can’t do, Koreans can be hired for those jobs. To summarize, there will be job losses whether companies don’t utilize robots or use them. However, by utilizing robots, South Korea can provide more jobs for its citizens. In this sense, in countries with high labor costs, using robots can actually create more jobs for their citizens.
Introducing a robot tax can cause a variety of problems. The criteria are unclear, and it could hinder the development of robotics technology. It would also be difficult to implement in all countries at the same time, as each country’s situation is different. While I am against the idea of a robot tax, I do believe that we need to find a solution to the job problem caused by the development of AI robots, and a robot tax is one of the solutions, but there are still many issues that need to be addressed. Before introducing a robot tax, I think we need to create laws to regulate various issues related to AI robots. For example, how to categorize the level of intelligence, which robots should be subject to the robot tax, etc. I believe that a robot tax is one way to solve the problems that may arise from a robot tax, but I also believe that there are better solutions than a robot tax. For example, the International Bar Association (IBA) has also argued that policies should be put in place to deal with the upcoming job losses. Some of the suggestions include designating certain fields that can only be done by humans, human hiring quotas, a basic income, a robot tax, and labeling things “made by humans”. The IBA’s proposal is not the only policy that could be considered. A robot tax and other policies should be discussed thoroughly before implementing a robot tax.
