What if we imposed a Robot Tax and the Robots refused to pay? | Eastern NC Now

    I did not write this letter to the Wall Street Journal but I wish I had.
    FellaO

    April 2, 2017

    Regarding Andy Kessler's "Bill Gates vs. The Robots" (op-ed, March 27):

    Bill Gates has suggested that we tax the robots in proportion to the jobs they displace. It is not clear if this is intended to compensate for the lost income taxes no longer paid by the workers who were replaced or to discourage the use of robots. Given the consistency of robots' output and their ability to function in dangerous and unpleasant environments, they may still be a better choice in many circumstances. The calculation of a "robot tax" will be complex and will constantly change as the robots take on more and more functions. Likely a whole new Washington, D.C., building will be needed, filled with bureaucrats calculating the robot tax and imposing more regulations on American industry. Some categories of employment will increase. How far will this go? What about washing machines and dishwashers? Those jobs used to be done by humans.

    Rather than making American industry more competitive by reducing business and corporate income taxes and regulations, this approach imposes more taxes and regulations. This will drive out still more manufacturers and further reduce factory employment. This demonstrates the heavy propensity to use taxation and tax breaks as a solution to too many problems while remaining blind to the damage caused. All too often higher taxes lead to lower tax revenue as business and industry are demotivated.

    Walter S. Ciciora, Ph.D.

    I did write the Lagniappe...

    Lagniappe: At first I thought "demotivated" was not a word but it is and it should be because it is alive and well in the Taxation With Representation Department in Washington, D.C.