I'm sure everyone here has thought about the implication of automation on the future of employment. But I personally hadn't considered the impact specifically on social security systems in particular. Interesting!

I must admit, this all seems very murky to me. When does a collection of hardware running some software become a "robot"? If I can replace an intern with a Python script, does that script start having to pay social security too? If one were to take a principled stand on this, each business should have to estimate however many people have been "automated away" and pay that much social security. Maybe we could back-date the impact of automation to the invention of the steam engine, perhaps, since this is clearly an ongoing trend and not something that is only starting in 2017.

And why does a piece of equipment need to be deemed a "robot" in order to for someone to be liable for damages it might cause? I'm no legal expert, but my understanding is that there are already plenty of laws and judicial precedents in place regarding such liabilities.

R2-robots are exempt, as they just beeps annoyingly while getting lost.

The thought that you could tax software for the performed labour is new to me, but why not. As the way it is sort-of implied in the text - requiring some sort of mechanical implementation in addition to software, it will probably slow down development of robotics in EU, which is currently the only way we can compete with slave labour^H^H^H^H low-income economies.

Or you could issue new money and put it in circulation as BHI. That way the money hoarders and robot beneficiaries can't hide their money. Also tax all other values such as properties and shares, so they can't hide the value of their wealth by converting it into something else.

The issue with automation owners is that they want to get money for their products while not hiring people. Thus the cycle of money is broken. Money should circulate like water in nature, not accumulate in some place from where it can't escape. The automation owners should support BHI otherwise who's going to buy their products? They are going to be hit too when demand falls.

If you think from a game theory point of view, the automation owners should accept a loss in order to keep the system working, otherwise they have to take an even bigger loss. But they would prefer other people pay their taxes while they escape (so they lobby for advantages in law), a move based on greed - even though if everyone would do that it would mean they all lose. Similar to the tragedy of commons.

The tax level should strike a balance that makes it worthwhile to automate something but the downsides (inequality) can be counteracted by the tax still.

Ideally, the same applies to tax on gasoline, smoking etc.

It's an utterly and completely absurd idea.

There is no such thing as a 'robot automaton' for the most part anyhow.

Do you know Starbucks started using machines to make Capuccinos instead of having the baristas do the full work.

Does that count as a robot?

Does the new accounting software that requires less human input count as a robot?

Do the police traffic cameras count as robots?

What about airlines that used to have 4 crew in the cockpit but now only 2 due to advances in navigation?

Or the specialized 'domain search' tools for professions that save 1/2 their search time and therefore law/medical firms require less staffers?

Or the automated ticketing booths at the Airport?

Or the upgraded baggage handling machine that works twice as fast and requires less humans moving luggage?

Or the advanced comms/radar that means greater safety and 1/2 the air traffic control staff?

Can you imagine the legal hangaring over what constitutes 'automation'? And the lawsuits? And the cost?

This is part of the reason that the EU is in many ways a complete disaster. How utterly stupid.

There's an article today about France trying to recruit startups.

The moment you hire a few people, and use online services to do your taxes, instead of doing them yourself - do you have to 'assess' your workplace as having an 'automation' upgrade and then pay more taxes?

It's fantastically Orwellian.

Regardless, I do favor automation, just as a I favor to have a more leisurely life. This is possible with automation, but not as the world currently works: automation makes people loose their jobs, without pay. If automated labor were taxed, people can loose their jobs with pay.

Yes, there are difficulties, but I think it's worth looking in to them.

As to the baristas, making the coffee is only a part of the job. Many parts of many jobs will be automated, allowing the humans to focus on what remains and maybe expand/improve that.

Eight!

Just 8 men own same wealth as half the world.

EIGHT!

Literally, why would it? It's not (a) part of society nor (b) have needs that might be fulfilled by social security services.

What might follow from deeming "robots" (whatever they are, exactly) to be electronic persons?

If robots can have liability for damages they cause, does this in turn exempt their owner from liability? Can an electronic person even have an owner? Can the hundred million nanorobot I just stamped out all make political contributions to some preferred candidate (naturally the one most in favor or robot liberation)? Can they vote?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

Alternatively, if the description of a job can be expressed as a python script, and still be as robust in practice, what does that say about the job itself? Or about the people who are/were doing that job? How much of the threat of automation is based on realizing that the job one is doing, not just the output, could be commoditized?

But the public sector doesn't care primarily about ROI; they care about keeping their budgets growing every year. Since the public sector also strongly dislikes increased unemployment, nothing happens.

Before machines, horses did the work and I think farmers also needed to pay a tax for their horses (citation needed).

Such a tax should strike such a balance that it's still worth to automate work but also earn enough tax an social security to help the displaced workers.

I believe that the steam engine mainly replaced horses, not people.

> "The US, China, Korea, and Japan are currently working on very ambitious projects," Vice Chair Mady Delvaux wrote in an op-ed last fall. "If we do not create the legal framework for the development of robotics, our market will be invaded by robots from outside the EU. The European Parliament could be the first Parliament in the world to discuss and create such a legal framework."

Its fascinating how this frames the issue. Not only are jobs being taken by robots, but they're being taken by immigrant robots! We must strengthen our cultural norms to prevent this invasion!

Fundamentally this is about how the EU commission perceives unregulated markets and it's desire to legitimize them through regulation, or at a minimum producing a 'framework' for their existence.

The whole process is Napoleonic.

Companies pay taxes on labour - usually as a function of 'social security' and other things - a 'human' will engender social costs down the road into which taxes must be paid.

In Canada - the only payroll tax is basically that - social security. Somewhat similarly in the US.

On the continent - it's a little more.

The reason that the government taxes labour (before income tax) is because:

A) They can. And what gov. official doesn't want to get more tax revenue?

B) It's an easy tay to hide huge income taxes.

If the EU simply transferred all payroll taxes and simply rolled them into income taxes (which would be economically equivalent) - then income tax in most EU countries would be quite massive. Well over 60% in many cases. That doesn't 'seem' very competitive, does it. Also - when you get your paycheque today in France it has x% deducted - if there wasn't payroll tax then it would be much more deducted - and the 'emotinality' of it all would be much greater. Payroll taxes are a way to 'hide' high tax rates from the commoner.

It would be more transparent if EU countries just did away with payroll taxes and put it as part of income tax - then we'd have a better picture of what is going on.

We collectivize the means of production and run the robots ourselves.

Take, for example the production of biscuit packets. Yes you could have a robot artisanally robo craft them. But of course everyone uses plastic thermoformers which can stamp out millions of packets very quickly.

Would new taxes apply to this machine? How many people would it count for?

I don't have a way to make sense of this type of thinking.

Did we tax the printing press when it automated writing books?

Did we tax the grain combine?

Did we tax industrial automation?

It seems like a ridiculously slippery slope to begin taxing any means of production. Where do we draw the line? Should I tax a shovel because it takes less time to dig a hole with one than with your bare hands?

Note that this is also different than company tax. When goods become cheaper to make through automation yes, some or all of that might turn up as profit.

But it also might result in lower prices being passed on to customers and a more competitive company. Company tax wouldn't capture this.

For industries which are almost fully automated already (e.g. textile manufacturing) it does not seem there would be much impact. But it would (from my point of view, arbitrarily) punish new types of automation introduced after such a tax were applied.

Modulo a world war, a revolution in a major country, a Great Depression and its accompanying famines, another world war, another revolution in another major country, multiple revolutions in multiple minor countries, and multiple localized famines in minor countries. Oh, and repeated genocides.

There was no comfortable transition from pre-industrial agrarianism to social democracy. There was horror, pain, and death at levels to which we've now learned to say, "Never again."

Taxation is still the go-to way to influence economic decision, so it's not a surprise that lawmakers try to use it to balance out the difference. From that standpoint it's actually not a surreal idea.

"Meat glacier" (ht: Schlock Mercenary) is also a pejorative; it implies very slow thinking.

The correct, non-judgmental terms are "carbon person" and "silicon person". (My silicon co-worker confirms this, "meatbag" gets a red underline, but "carbon person" does not.)