Taxing Robots and Automated Systems - Yes or No?

The dictionary describes tax as a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits, or added to the cost of some goods, services and transactions. The above definition of tax emphasises some key phrases which includes: “compulsory contribution”, “levied by the government ”, “on workers”, “income”, “business profit”, “added to the cost of some goods, services and transactions”. These key phrases makes it obvious that tax is a compulsory payment thats levied by the government on workers income.

Bearing in mind the definition of tax, the era of Artificial Intelligence has and will continue to change how work is done as well as who gets to keep their jobs. It has been predicted that almost all jobs could potentially be wiped out by Artificial intelligence over time. Although it has also been predicted that new jobs will be ushered in, there is no certainty that humans will be needed to do some of these jobs. Some organisations in order to maximise profit have also begun investing heavily in the use of robots - as robots are more cost effective, more productive and more efficient than humans. For example, robots do not take time off work, neither do they take no sick or vacation days. In some instances, entire workforce have been replaced completely with robots, leaving such affected employees no choice but to search for new jobs - which might not even exist given the shrinking job market.

Re-skilling has been suggested as an alternative to those whose jobs have been wiped out - most especially to young or middled aged employees who still have the interest, strength as well as the capacity to learn new skills and retrain themselves to be employable in professions that has not yet been completely wiped out with the use of robots or by artificial intelligence. However, as beneficial as it sounds to reskill, not everyone will be able to do so. For example, an unemployed person who is already close to retirement will not benefit so much from re-skilling, neither will a factory worker who has become sick from the stress of the factory job he/she has handled over the years. Unemployed people that fall into the categories above will not benefit from re-skilling as much as they would benefit from retiring in their current role which has been replaced with robots. In some other cases, with artificial intelligence, there is also no certainty that the new jobs created will be able to accommodate all the people that their jobs that have been replaced with robots.

Despite these challenges or benefits, discussions that centre around robots - especially about the taxation of the very machines that displaced humans - are rarely taking place, whereas paying tax was compulsory by humans on incomes previously generated by the same roles robots now occupy (see the definition of tax above). Most discussions have not only just been centred around creating panic and anxiety, but they have greatly underestimated how it might be possible for the society to benefit from taxing robots and automated systems. Should this discussion begin or should it not?

Kindly leave your comments below.