Robots To Pay "Social Security" Under EU Tax Proposal

[Picaro]

Europe’s growing army of robot workers could be classed as “electronic persons” and their owners liable to paying social security for them if the European Union adopts a draft plan to address the realities of a new industrial revolution.

Robots are being deployed in ever-greater numbers in factories and also taking on tasks such as personal care or surgery, raising fears over unemployment, wealth inequality and alienation.

Their growing intelligence, pervasiveness and autonomy requires rethinking everything from taxation to legal liability, a draft European Parliament motion, dated May 31, suggests.

The draft motion called on the European Commission to consider “that at least the most sophisticated autonomous robots could be established as having the status of electronic persons with specific rights and obligations”.

It also suggested the creation of a register for smart autonomous robots, which would link each one to funds established to cover its legal liabilities.



The draft motion, drawn up by the European parliament’s committee on legal affairs also said organizations should have to declare savings they made in social security contributions by using robotics instead of people, for tax purposes.



The motion faces an uphill battle to win backing from the various political blocks in European Parliament. Even if it did get enough support to pass, it would be a non-binding resolution as the Parliament lacks the authority to propose legislation.

Robots To Pay "Social Security" Under EU Tax Proposal | Zero Hedge

This idea has some possibilities if done sensibly. Why keep trying to tax declining incomes on fewer jobs, while at the same time flooding your country with low paid third world workers? You can't squeeze that turnip endlessly and expect to survive as a first world country.

 

[there4eyeM]

This is the kind of innovative thinking needed to adapt to new times and situations.

 

[FA_Q2]

Not really.

What defines a single robot? I could have an autonomous robot that mass produces a million widgets or one that only produces one every hour. Are you going to tax the machine based on it production? Why not simply tax the production directly then?

The idea of charging machines for social security is the height of silliness. It is simply nonsensical.

And this statement:
"having the status of electronic persons with specific rights and obligations"
is absolutely insane. Machines do not have rights. Get back to me when you make one that is self aware and THEN we can talk about conferring protected rights. Otherwise a robot has the same rights as a rock.

 

[Picaro]

This is the kind of innovative thinking needed to adapt to new times and situations.

The 'legal liability' thing is crazy, but the tax liability concept is viable. Lower wages mean lower contribution rates to SS and other payroll taxes, so make it up by taxing the higher productivity rates of robotic machinery. We can also put taxes on imports to make up the differences in sweatshop wages overseas sucking jobs out as well, and reduce the tax burdens all around on workers and middle class salaries, putting more disposable income into the economy.

 

[FA_Q2]

This is the kind of innovative thinking needed to adapt to new times and situations.

Why?
Making more things pseudo 'people' in order to tax them is not 'innovative' thinking. It is trying to hold onto antiquated ideas that work in an economy that is going away and refusing to adapt to the changing reality.

We tax people NOW for social security benefits to make the system work. Holding onto that system in the face of a changing economy by trying to tax inanimate objects is not being innovative - it is refusing to change how the system works.

 

[FA_Q2]

This is the kind of innovative thinking needed to adapt to new times and situations.

The 'legal liability' thing is crazy, but the tax liability concept is viable.

I do not think it is.

Robots are not even remotely similar to each other on a grand scale. Trying to come up with a viable tax schedule that incorporates the literal infinite possibilities a robot may take the form of would just be overly complex and silly.

And why is the legal liability thing the one part you think is silly? That is the only thing that actually makes a lick of sense...

 

[there4eyeM]

Assigning any kind of 'person' status to machines is neither desirable not the point, at least as I was thinking. The economics of modernization and robots, however, requires re-thinking 'labor', 'revenue' and human well being.

 

[Reed]

Not really.

What defines a single robot? I could have an autonomous robot that mass produces a million widgets or one that only produces one every hour. Are you going to tax the machine based on it production? Why not simply tax the production directly then?

The idea of charging machines for social security is the height of silliness. It is simply nonsensical.

And this statement:
"having the status of electronic persons with specific rights and obligations"
is absolutely insane. Machines do not have rights. Get back to me when you make one that is self aware and THEN we can talk about conferring protected rights. Otherwise a robot has the same rights as a rock.

I'd like to use this as an example of misused vocabulary.
A "robot" can be programmed to do a required function and then can be reprogrammed to do a different function.
A "machine" is built to do one specific function and will always do that function.
In short, Robots and Machines are not the same thing. We do not need to tax escalators or hold them liable.

However, at the rate technology is moving and the time take to pass laws. Baseline laws pertaining to the liability and taxes of self-aware robots could be needed sooner than we believe.

 

[there4eyeM]

Interesting approach to definition, though tech could make even this 'difference' more and more blurred (think of nano-machines, etc.).

In any case, big revisions of thinking about 'money', value, wealth and what is important (life) need to be arrived at and integrated into our systems. Otherwise, unintelligent upheaval will ruin what has the potential for being the best times in human history.

 

[Reed]

Interesting approach to definition, though tech could make even this 'difference' more and more blurred (think of nano-machines, etc.).

These two definition catergorize every tech field I can think of, could you please provide an example other than "nano-MACHINES" as something thats neither machine nor robot?

Edit: After researching the definition of nano-machine. Nano refers only to the size of the machine.

 

[there4eyeM]

Interesting approach to definition, though tech could make even this 'difference' more and more blurred (think of nano-machines, etc.).

These two definition catergorize every tech field I can think of, could you please provide an example other than "nano-MACHINES" as something thats neither machine nor robot?

Edit: After researching the definition of nano-machine. Nano refers only to the size of the machine.

This was not negative criticism, merely speculation that advances may be in unforeseen directions. The question, however, brought software and programming to mind. Perhaps that/those don't fit the thinking?

 

[Reed]

I understood it was not negative I was just looking for an example that fit and was showing why nano-machines did not. You were completely right a self-aware AI it outside of those rules. The idea that a self-aware AI would be limited to a single form or body is absurd. However a problem may arise if we tax AI's corperations would claim they had stopped on the brink of self awareness however they could be suppressing the AI's by threats and how would we know if an AI was lying?

(Was rereading this thread) A point you brought up earlier about redifining "human being" which is "homo sapien", but if for say deer evolved overnight and could work, talk, and started living in houses. They would still not be human beings. They would need to be liable for their actions and taxed

 

[there4eyeM]

I understood it was not negative I was just looking for an example that fit and was showing why nano-machines did not. You were completely right a self-aware AI it outside of those rules. The idea that a self-aware AI would be limited to a single form or body is absurd. However a problem may arise if we tax AI's corperations would claim they had stopped on the brink of self awareness however they could be suppressing the AI's by threats and how would we know if an AI was lying?

(Was rereading this thread) A point you brought up earlier about redifining "human being" which is "homo sapien", but if for say deer evolved overnight and could work, talk, and started living in houses. They would still not be human beings. They would need to be liable for their actions and taxed

India recently legislated protection of porpoises the same as humans, recognizing their intelligence and cognitive traits. This is, perhaps tangentially, interesting as it enlarges somewhat the concept of what is behind the 'specialness' of our own species.
We need to collectively increase our understanding of what we are before we can make further progress on where we are going. Comprehension of what our existence is and can be is rather shallow, on the whole.

 

[Silent Warrior]

If you think about it, this might pump more dollars into the social security fund now, but would be a disastrous cost in the long run. If they are pseudo persons and have to pay in, then they should be able to retire at the current retirement age and collect benefits. Since they don't die, they could be collecting social security forever. If you don't think that could happen, you don't know lawyers.

 

[Picaro]

If you think about it, this might pump more dollars into the social security fund now, but would be a disastrous cost in the long run. If they are pseudo persons and have to pay in, then they should be able to retire at the current retirement age and collect benefits. Since they don't die, they could be collecting social security forever. If you don't think that could happen, you don't know lawyers.

I don't see where that follows at all; the article is just throwing that kind of 'reasoning' in there for dramatic effect. they are only 'persons' for tax purposes, and that's it. If wages of workers are taxable, then so should the productivity of the machines that take their jobs.

 

[Reed]

If you think about it, this might pump more dollars into the social security fund now, but would be a disastrous cost in the long run. If they are pseudo persons and have to pay in, then they should be able to retire at the current retirement age and collect benefits. Since they don't die, they could be collecting social security forever. If you don't think that could happen, you don't know lawyers.

Technology does not "live forever" and would oil changes and spare part replacement be counted as health insurance? However if you replaced the parts reguraly it would last alot longer. So how many times can you replace the wood on your boat until it becomes a new boat?

 

[FA_Q2]

Not really.

What defines a single robot? I could have an autonomous robot that mass produces a million widgets or one that only produces one every hour. Are you going to tax the machine based on it production? Why not simply tax the production directly then?

The idea of charging machines for social security is the height of silliness. It is simply nonsensical.

And this statement:
"having the status of electronic persons with specific rights and obligations"
is absolutely insane. Machines do not have rights. Get back to me when you make one that is self aware and THEN we can talk about conferring protected rights. Otherwise a robot has the same rights as a rock.

I'd like to use this as an example of misused vocabulary.
A "robot" can be programmed to do a required function and then can be reprogrammed to do a different function.
A "machine" is built to do one specific function and will always do that function.
In short, Robots and Machines are not the same thing. We do not need to tax escalators or hold them liable.

However, at the rate technology is moving and the time take to pass laws. Baseline laws pertaining to the liability and taxes of self-aware robots could be needed sooner than we believe.

That does not change anything I said.

 

[FA_Q2]

If you think about it, this might pump more dollars into the social security fund now, but would be a disastrous cost in the long run. If they are pseudo persons and have to pay in, then they should be able to retire at the current retirement age and collect benefits. Since they don't die, they could be collecting social security forever. If you don't think that could happen, you don't know lawyers.

I don't see where that follows at all; the article is just throwing that kind of 'reasoning' in there for dramatic effect. they are only 'persons' for tax purposes, and that's it. If wages of workers are taxable, then so should the productivity of the machines that take their jobs.

That makes more sense though - taxing 'productivity.' The statements thus far have focused on taxing the machine as though it was a laborer. That is a separate concept with taxing actual production which is doable.

 

[Reed]

Not really.

What defines a single robot? I could have an autonomous robot that mass produces a million widgets or one that only produces one every hour. Are you going to tax the machine based on it production? Why not simply tax the production directly then?

The idea of charging machines for social security is the height of silliness. It is simply nonsensical.

And this statement:
"having the status of electronic persons with specific rights and obligations"
is absolutely insane. Machines do not have rights. Get back to me when you make one that is self aware and THEN we can talk about conferring protected rights. Otherwise a robot has the same rights as a rock.

I'd like to use this as an example of misused vocabulary.
A "robot" can be programmed to do a required function and then can be reprogrammed to do a different function.
A "machine" is built to do one specific function and will always do that function.
In short, Robots and Machines are not the same thing. We do not need to tax escalators or hold them liable.

However, at the rate technology is moving and the time take to pass laws. Baseline laws pertaining to the liability and taxes of self-aware robots could be needed sooner than we believe.

That does not change anything I said.

I was simply putting out the information that machine and robot are not interchangable words and since you had used the interchangably, I used yours as an example. I said nothing about your statement being true or false.

 

[HenryBHough]

If the New United Kingdom can rest the urge to adopt this European assault on business it's not hart to think of the tremendous increase in manufacturing industry in that wonderful new nation.