Recently the worlds richest man Bill Gates has said if a robot taking the place of a human being from a job where the employer previously was having to pay a salaried worker $53k per year where taxes would have been deducted from that salary then the employer should still pay tax on the money saved by using the robot.
But isn't Gates missing the point?
The employer will ultimately be paying more tax on the extra 53k profit saved by using the robot , less of course the depreciation cost factor of the robot .
If put into practice the same arguments could be used for any technology that resulted in less employment, electricity replacing steam etc.
Here is the article:
But isn't Gates missing the point?
The employer will ultimately be paying more tax on the extra 53k profit saved by using the robot , less of course the depreciation cost factor of the robot .
If put into practice the same arguments could be used for any technology that resulted in less employment, electricity replacing steam etc.
Here is the article:
Comment