In an interview with online magazine Quartz, Gates said: ‘Right now, the human worker who does, say, $50,000 (£40,250) worth of work in a factory, that income is taxed and you get income tax, social security tax, all those things. If a robot comes in to do the same thing, you’d think that we’d tax the robot at a similar level.’

Gates argued that automation offered the opportunity for companies to make the same amount of good and services, but to free up workers for jobs where it is currently sometimes challenging to find staff.

‘Let us do a better job of reaching out to the elderly, having smaller class sizes, helping kids with special needs. You know, all of those are things where human empathy and understanding are still very, very unique. And we still deal with an immense shortage of people to help out there,’ he said.
Gates indicated that any taxation system which applied to robots look at taking the extra productivity and generating more taxes.

‘Exactly how you’d do it, measure it, you know, it’s interesting for people to start talking about now. Some of it can come on the profits that are generated by the labor-saving efficiency there. Some of it can come directly in some type of robot tax. I don’t think the robot companies are going to be outraged that there might be a tax,’ he said.

Gates suggested that over the next 20 years, a number of job activities would be replaced all at once, citing warehouse work, driving, and room cleanup as examples. He suggested that a new taxation regime was a better way of handling the changes than simply banning some elements of it.

‘The nice thing about taxation though, is that it really separates the issue: “OK, so that gives you the resources, now how do you want to deploy it?",’ Gates said.

John Cullinane, CIOT tax policy director, said at first glance Gate’s suggestion looked like a ‘tax on progress’, but argued it echoed wider discussions.

‘Tax is already complicated and following Gates’ suggestion would mean that someone will have to come up with a definition of what constitutes a robot. This would be crucial as it would determine if a business paid a lot more tax or not. It may even lead to a new branch of the tax and accountancy profession.

‘Where Gates’ intervention is welcome is that it is an attempt to open a debate on how the tax system needs to adapt to accommodate long-term trends,’ he said.

Europe

The European Parliament has recently debated the introduction of EU-wide rules relating robotics and artificial intelligence, in order to fully exploit their economic potential and to guarantee a standard level of safety and security.

In a debate last week MEPs said that regulatory standards for robots are being planned in several countries, and point out that the EU needs to take the lead on setting these standards, so as not to be forced to follow those set by third countries.

MEPs called for draft legislation to clarify liability issues, especially for self-driving cars. They wanted a mandatory insurance scheme and a supplementary fund to ensure that victims of accidents involving driverless cars are fully compensated.

MEPs also ask the Commission to consider creating a specific legal status for robots in the long run, in order to establish who is liable if they cause damage.

The rapid development of robots might result in changes in the labour market through the creation, displacement and loss of certain jobs. MEPs urge the Commission to follow these trends closely, although they fought shy of suggesting a robot tax to fund compensation or retraining initiatives for workers who lost their jobs as a result of automation.

MEPs proposed a voluntary ethical code of conduct on robotics for researchers and designers to ensure that they operate in accordance with legal and ethical standards and that robot design and use respect human dignity.

They also asked the Commission to consider creating a European agency for robotics and artificial intelligence, to supply public authorities with technical, ethical and regulatory expertise.
The resolution was passed by 396 votes to 123, with 85 abstentions. The Commission will not be obliged to follow the Parliament’s recommendations, but must state its reasons if it refuses.