econintersect.com
       
  

FREE NEWSLETTER: Econintersect sends a nightly newsletter highlighting news events of the day, and providing a summary of new articles posted on the website. Econintersect will not sell or pass your email address to others per our privacy policy. You can cancel this subscription at any time by selecting the unsubscribing link in the footer of each email.



posted on 14 March 2017

Could Bill Gates' Plan To Tax Robots Really Lead To A Brighter Future For All?

from The Conversation

-- this post authored by Malcolm James, Cardiff Metropolitan University

Bill Gates has stated in an interview that robots who take human jobs should pay taxes. This has some obvious attractions.

Not only, as Gates says, will we be able to spend the money to finance jobs for which humans are particularly suited, such as caring for children or the elderly, but robots are also unlikely to complain about tax levels, they don't use services financed by tax revenue such as education or the health services and they are most unlikely to salt away income and assets in a tax haven. What's not to like? The Conversation

Well, actually, you can't tax robots any more than you can tax any other inanimate object - but Bill Gates's suggestion does address some of today's most important tax issues. What proportion of its tax revenue should a state raise from each of the three main tax bases; capital, labour and expenditure? And how can a state counteract tax avoidance by large companies and wealthy individuals?

Taxing robots would, in reality, be a tax on the capital employed by businesses in using them and might help to redress the long-term shift away from taxing capital. In 1981, the rate of corporation tax was 52%, although generous relief meant that the tax base was relatively narrow. This has now fallen to 20% and further reductions to 17% are planned by 2020.

By contrast, the principal expenditure tax, VAT, was originally set at 8% in 1973, but rose to 15% in 1979 and is now 20%. This means that individuals are contributing a larger proportion of tax revenue than previously through taxes on salaries and expenditure and businesses are contributing less through taxes on their profits - even though they make use of the UK's transport, financial and legal infrastructure and benefit from the education and healthcare provided to their employees.

Fairer taxation

One of the justifications for not taxing capital is that companies do not bear the economic cost of taxation through lower returns to their shareholders, but pass it on to labour and consumers through lower wages and/or higher prices. This argument is contentious.

Edward Kleinbard, Professor of Law and Business at the University of Southern California, observes that "unseemly scuffles" can ensue when this topic is discussed at academic conferences. But whereas academics can have a good punch-up, agree to differ and then retire to the bar for drinks, Kleinbard cites several US government departments and committees, who must make policy based on their assumptions, estimate that capital bears between 75% and 95% of the economic cost of corporation tax, meaning that they can only shift a small part of it onto labour and consumers.

Furthermore, when US Uncut in April 2011 issued a hoax press release purporting to be from GE, stating that it would hand back a US$$3.2 billion tax refund as "contrition for past abuses", the company's market capitalisation very briefly fell by around US$3.5 billion.

On this evidence, shareholders behave as though they believe that capital bears the economic cost of corporation tax through reduced dividends. If they did not believe this, why would they have cared? On the evidence of Kleinbard and the hoax, the theory that capital does not bear the economic cost of tax would therefore appear to be a rationalising discourse put forward by those who benefit from lower taxes on capital.

Fair share? Shutterstock

Taxing robots might also help to counteract tax avoidance, because the tax would be calculated by taxing a notional salary paid to the robot, and the company would be allowed to deduct this notional payment for the purpose of corporation tax.

Tax avoidance by large multinationals typically operates by transferring taxable profits from where they economically arise to tax havens, where their presence is often no more than a brass plate on a wall and a mailbox, or even, in the case of Apple, to a company located in some mid-Atlantic limbo, whose profits were therefore not taxable in any tax jurisdiction. These companies pay the same rate of corporation tax as all other companies on their profits remaining in the UK or Ireland, but ensure that these are only a small fraction of their total profits.

In contrast, the robot tax, just like salaries, would be calculated on an amount notionally payable out of revenue and would be payable in the tax jurisdiction in which the robot was located. This would be where the revenue was economically generated and this location would be determined by economics rather than tax considerations.

Is it even possible?

Finally, Bill Gates puts forward the currently unfashionable view that governments have an important role to play in combating inequality. For the past 35 or 40 years the dominant view has been that this would be achieved through economic growth and should therefore be left to the private sector and the markets.

But Gates says that combating inequality will require large amounts of excess labour to be used to help those on lower incomes, that robots will free up this labour and that the impetus for the necessary changes must come from governments because business cannot or will not do this of their own accord.

Furthermore, he says that taxing robots will not discourage innovation. People are naturally anxious about the effects of such technology, but taxation is a better way of allaying these fears than the alternative of banning aspects of it.

Could taxation of robots ever happen? Certainly it could, but the $64,000 question is whether there is the political will to do it. It would take a major paradigm shift in our attitude towards taxation to see it as a possible force for good, rather than simply a dead weight and burden. However, in the 1960s and 1970s today's attitude towards taxation would have been equally inconceivable. Never say never.

Malcolm James, Senior Lecturer in Accounting & Taxation, Cardiff Metropolitan University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

>>>>> Scroll down to view and make comments <<<<<<

Click here for Historical Opinion Post Listing










Make a Comment

Econintersect wants your comments, data and opinion on the articles posted. You can also comment using Facebook directly using he comment block below.




Econintersect Opinion


search_box

Print this page or create a PDF file of this page
Print Friendly and PDF


The growing use of ad blocking software is creating a shortfall in covering our fixed expenses. Please consider a donation to Econintersect to allow continuing output of quality and balanced financial and economic news and analysis.


Take a look at what is going on inside of Econintersect.com
Main Home
Analysis Blog
Angst in America, Part 5: The Crisis We Can’t Muddle Through
Trade and Increased Commercial Investment Saved Q1 2017 GDP from Contraction
News Blog
This Fantastic Idea For A Circular Runway Is Sadly Going Nowhere
Research Check: Are Aussie Women Ageing Up To 20 Years Faster Than US Women?
UFO Sightings Are At Record Heights
What We Read Today 28 April 2017
Kim Jong Un Pretends To Fly An Airplane
21 April 2017: ECRI's WLI Growth Index Continues to Slow
Final April 2017 Michigan Consumer Sentiment Continues Positive Trend
April 2017 Chicago Purchasing Managers Barometer New Orders Close To Three-Year High
Advance Estimate 1Q2017 GDP Quarter-over-Quarter Growth at 0.7 Percent.
Rail Week Ending 22 April 2017: Marginally Slower Week
March 2017 Median Household Income Not Significantly Different
Infographic Of The Day: The Largest Company Headquartered In Each State
Early Headlines: Asia Stocks Down, Dollar, Oil, And Gold All Up, Trump Will Pay ACA $, State Dept To Cut 9%, Trump Tax Plan, UK House Prices Drop, France GDP Growth Slows, And More
Investing Blog
Investing.com Weekly Wrap-Up 28 April 2017
Think Differently For Better Trading Results
Opinion Blog
Blockchain: A Technology Whose Time Has Come
Trump's Tax Plan Is Brilliant Politics And Even Better Economics
Precious Metals Blog
A New Age For Gold
Live Markets
28Apr2017 Market Close: Wall Street Closed Mostly Down On News The U.S. Economy Grew At Its Weakest Pace In Three Years, WTI Crude Settles In The Low 49 Handle
Amazon Books & More






.... and keep up with economic news using our dynamic economic newspapers with the largest international coverage on the internet
Asia / Pacific
Europe
Middle East / Africa
Americas
USA Government































 navigate econintersect.com

Blogs

Analysis Blog
News Blog
Investing Blog
Opinion Blog
Precious Metals Blog
Markets Blog
Video of the Day
Weather

Newspapers

Asia / Pacific
Europe
Middle East / Africa
Americas
USA Government
     

RSS Feeds / Social Media

Combined Econintersect Feed
Google+
Facebook
Twitter
Digg

Free Newsletter

Marketplace - Books & More

Economic Forecast

Content Contribution

Contact

About

  Top Economics Site

Investing.com Contributor TalkMarkets Contributor Finance Blogs Free PageRank Checker Active Search Results Google+

This Web Page by Steven Hansen ---- Copyright 2010 - 2017 Econintersect LLC - all rights reserved