Should Robots Pay Taxes? Tax Policy in the Age of Automation

Ryan B. Abbott, B. Bogenschneider
{"title":"Should Robots Pay Taxes? Tax Policy in the Age of Automation","authors":"Ryan B. Abbott, B. Bogenschneider","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2932483","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Existing technologies can already automate most work functions, and the cost of these technologies is decreasing at a time when human labor costs are increasing. This, combined with ongoing advances in computing, artificial intelligence, and robotics, has led experts to predict that automation will lead to significant job losses and worsening income inequality. Policy makers are actively debating how to deal with these problems, with most proposals focusing on investing in education to train workers in new job types, or investing in social benefits to distribute the gains of automation. \nThe importance of tax policy has been neglected in this debate, which is unfortunate because such policies are critically important. The tax system incentivizes automation even in cases where it is not otherwise efficient. That is because the vast majority of tax revenue is now derived from labor income, so firms avoid taxes by eliminating employees. More importantly, when a machine replaces a person, the government loses a substantial amount of tax revenue—potentially trillions of dollars a year in the aggregate. All of this is the unintended result of a system designed to tax labor rather than capital. Such a system no longer works once the labor is capital. Robots are not good taxpayers. \nWe argue that existing tax policies must be changed. The system should be at least “neutral” as between robot and human workers, and automation should not be allowed to reduce tax revenue. This could be achieved by disallowing corporate tax deductions for automated workers, creating an “automation tax” which mirrors existing unemployment schemes, granting offsetting tax preferences for human workers, levying a corporate self-employment tax, or increasing the corporate tax rate. We argue the ideal solution may be a combination of these proposals.","PeriodicalId":196465,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Wages; Intergenerational Income Distribution (Topic)","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"83","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ERN: Wages; Intergenerational Income Distribution (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2932483","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 83

Abstract

Existing technologies can already automate most work functions, and the cost of these technologies is decreasing at a time when human labor costs are increasing. This, combined with ongoing advances in computing, artificial intelligence, and robotics, has led experts to predict that automation will lead to significant job losses and worsening income inequality. Policy makers are actively debating how to deal with these problems, with most proposals focusing on investing in education to train workers in new job types, or investing in social benefits to distribute the gains of automation. The importance of tax policy has been neglected in this debate, which is unfortunate because such policies are critically important. The tax system incentivizes automation even in cases where it is not otherwise efficient. That is because the vast majority of tax revenue is now derived from labor income, so firms avoid taxes by eliminating employees. More importantly, when a machine replaces a person, the government loses a substantial amount of tax revenue—potentially trillions of dollars a year in the aggregate. All of this is the unintended result of a system designed to tax labor rather than capital. Such a system no longer works once the labor is capital. Robots are not good taxpayers. We argue that existing tax policies must be changed. The system should be at least “neutral” as between robot and human workers, and automation should not be allowed to reduce tax revenue. This could be achieved by disallowing corporate tax deductions for automated workers, creating an “automation tax” which mirrors existing unemployment schemes, granting offsetting tax preferences for human workers, levying a corporate self-employment tax, or increasing the corporate tax rate. We argue the ideal solution may be a combination of these proposals.
机器人应该纳税吗?自动化时代的税收政策
现有技术已经可以实现大多数工作功能的自动化,并且在人工成本不断增加的同时,这些技术的成本正在下降。再加上计算、人工智能和机器人技术的不断进步,专家们预测,自动化将导致大量失业,加剧收入不平等。政策制定者正在积极讨论如何处理这些问题,大多数建议集中在投资教育以培训新工作类型的工人,或者投资社会福利以分配自动化的收益。在这场辩论中,税收政策的重要性被忽视了,这是不幸的,因为这些政策至关重要。税收制度鼓励自动化,即使在其他方面效率不高的情况下也是如此。这是因为现在绝大多数税收来自劳动收入,所以企业通过裁员来避税。更重要的是,当机器取代人的时候,政府会损失大量的税收收入——每年总计可能高达数万亿美元。所有这些都是一个旨在对劳动力而非资本征税的制度的意外结果。一旦劳动力成为资本,这种制度就不再有效。机器人不是好的纳税人。我们认为现有的税收政策必须改变。这个系统至少应该是介于机器人和人类工人之间的“中立”,而且不应该允许自动化减少税收。这可以通过不允许对自动化工人的企业税收减免、创建与现有失业计划相对应的“自动化税”、为人类工人提供抵销性税收优惠、征收企业自营职业税或提高企业税率来实现。我们认为,理想的解决方案可能是这些建议的结合。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信