Is "robot tax" really a "punishment for innovation"?
However, before taxing companies that use robots, it is necessary to agree on the actual situation of the robots. When people think of robots, they usually think of the huge arms on the assembly line that make cars, or the images of the automated transportation tools that carry goods in the warehouse. However, the traditional definition of a robot is quite simple. This definition is a technique that can combine perceptions, assessments, and actions to accomplish a specific task. The problem with this definition is that it is too broad. This definition classifies almost all technologies, including most modern home appliances, computers, and smartphones as robots. So what exactly should standards be set up? Indeed, why should we only tax robots? What about other technologies that increase automation, productivity, or product quality? Motion that can translate surgeons' hand movements into more precise micro-instruments? Is the technology a robot? Are ATMs, grocery store cash registers, or refrigerators that can interpret human needs? We can narrow the definition of the robot to include only those machines that perform tasks that were originally performed by humans. That problem came again, for example, we must include Microsoft's vast hardware and software products, because computers deal with word processing, transcribing, calculating mathematical formulas, and analyzing data, all of which are human tasks. With this in mind, it will be found that classifying automation technology and distinguishing what belongs to the "robots" category is more difficult. In addition, if a robot tax is implemented, many companies will directly classify their new automation technology as "computer," "home appliance," or "equipment." Of course, it's not difficult to actually implement a robot tax, as long as you clearly define what is a robot and what is not a robot. It is almost impossible to prove that there is a direct link between the implementation of automation technology and the net loss of employment. In some rare cases, a company may deploy an automated device and fire someone at the same time. However, most companies do not operate this way. They are constantly deploying new technologies to increase productivity, dismiss some employees, and hire other employees. In fact, if a robot causes one person to become unemployed, the company may employ three new employees: one to manage robots and the other two to recruit because robots can increase overall productivity. In reality, robots, like most automation, help people work more efficiently and more efficiently, not to replace human work. For centuries, facts have proved this. Since 1871, a study of census data for England and Wales found that the jobs created by science and technology far exceeded the levels during the 140-year period. The Deloitte report stated: "The machines will assume more repetitive and laborious tasks, but society does not seem to reduce the demand for human labor compared with any time in the past 150 years." Gates said that the tax on robots is, in essence, financially punishing companies that use the latest automation technology. It is actually an "innovation tax," but this is actually an outdated taxation method. Does the government not Should companies that are willing to innovate be supported, increase productivity, and increase workers' income? Automation will make the U.S. economy highly competitive globally. A better way to ensure that automation can improve the lives of all citizens is perhaps to ensure that businesses pay taxes on their profits and do not let automation become a wedge that leads to a greater gap between the rich and the poor. Companies increase their productivity through automation, and their profits are higher than before, so companies should pay more tax on collective systems. Of course, it is very difficult to fill in loopholes that allow US companies to avoid taxation, but it is crucial to the long-term healthy operation of the global economy. Allowing companies to pay the portion of taxes they pay for does not solve the enormous social challenge that automation will eventually replace low-skilled workers, and robot taxes cannot. Instead, the government should use fiscal revenue and tax to create more free or less expensive educational programs in the context of automation and teach people the skills to work with machines. For those unable to find jobs in future technology-driven societies, the government can provide universal basic income or other safety nets for the most disadvantaged groups. For the growing gap between the rich and the poor, the resolution is by no means a simple matter. This situation will only accelerate in the era of automation, because unskilled workers are at a clear disadvantage, but robot tax is not a solution to this problem. . Pharmaceuticals,2-Methyl- Propanoic Acid Monohydrate Price,2-Methyl- Propanoic Acid Monohydrate Free Sample,Pure 2-Methyl- Propanoic Acid Monohydrate Zhejiang Wild Wind Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. , https://www.wild-windchem.com