« Spreading the word: Caitlin Dewey on the promotion of GMO foods | Main | Up close and personal: Tausif Noor on Facebook’s Safety Check »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Bilge Açıkgöz

http://www.bilgeacikgoz.com Nişantaşı Psikolog Aile terapisi , panik atak , çocuk terapisi gibi konularda uzman klinik psikolog.

David Thompson

I dont think it makes sense to tax robots because robots are just machines..if machines have to pay taxes then every machine should pay tax like fan, washine machines, computers because every machine in some way or the other has replaced a human being. I think the better idea is to tax the value these robots create. For example if a robot creates a car then tax the car and not the robot.

Seth Polcari

This is something that I have often thought about, as a young professional seeking to enter the IT field. I think that this conversation needs to be addressed sooner, rather than later. As hard as it may be, we need to come up with a clear and defined set of standards for what defines a robot. I think that the tax should also be based on how many jobs it replaces, not necessarily the robot itself. There is a lot to be said about why companies are moving more towards automation apart from the cost savings as well. For instance, more consistency in the products themselves. Eliminate the human element and you have much fewer issues. Liability as well. A lot, but not all, manufacturing jobs incur an elevated level of risk. Risking a machine is a lot safer than risking a human life.

The point jobs lost vs tax revenue lost is also a great point. But a lot of this is unskilled labor positions, being replaced by skilled labor positions. Someone has to engineer, design, and build the robots.

Forrest W

Simon thinks that taxing robots is worth exploring because the United States is funded by a people-centric tax system and it is estimated that 1/3 of the jobs in the U.S. will be lost to robots. This takeover would be a huge blow to the tax revenue. The first obstacle we face is defining what a robot is. Simon says that if you ask 10 different people what determines a robot you will get 10 different answers. Robot tax would prevent a large chunk of the U.S. tax revenue from disappearing and it also keeps large corporations in check. Robots are much cheaper and more productive so without a tax major corporations will see their profits skyrocket and there will be no way smaller businesses can compete.


Simon thinks that a robot tax is worth exploring because it could help gradually usher in a basic universal income produced by mass automation. the first obstacle would be defining what a "robot" is, because the definition varies from person to person. And a robot tax could save our economy if an automated workforce becomes more dominant in the coming years, "the tax system in the US is still people-centric, which in a roboticized future could lead to a revenue death spiral. Cities and states get about 30 percent of their revenue from property taxes, 20 percent from sales tax, and another 20 from individual income taxes. When you've got mass unemployment, those revenue sources all tumble in unison."


I don't know if taxing a robot is the best idea. If you tax "robots" that is more than just the robots that do work. There are a lot of machines out there that are considered "robots." I also think that if robots take over the work force the government would lose a lot of money from not getting taxes like he said in the article.

abelson barthelemy

Having robots do our jobs is in ways smarter and faster, but not a good idea and it's also not a good idea to tax them. Humans get taxed on things such as social security etc. If it's a machine how would you take it for the certain things humans get taxed for, it doesn't make sense. Having robots take our jobs one, makes working citizens lose money and two makes the government lose money because the government makes money from the people.


It doesn't matter if they tax the robot or the things they are making, just as long as there is some sort of income for the government out of this. Human workers or robots both cost money to keep up with. Humans need a salary, certain benifts, etc and even though robots dont need to get paid they still have repair costs. Just like a normal worker- if you get injured/done all together then you need to have some sort of budget from the gov to fix the problem. Another thing is that if you tax these production robots then you need to tax anything that is considered a robot by the public.


The introduction of robot to take up jobs is great idea like Simon says in his article: machines are faster, more consistent smarter and cheaper than humans. The advantages of using machines/robot vs human implies that we can supply more goods and services at a particular time and there may be a point where the supply of goods may exceed their demand for goods in the United State. Now which people will buy the extra goods or services that are available if a third of the population are thrown out of their jobs because of technological advancement? Simon says the government will lose his sales tax because the people who are out of their jobs may not have the purchasing power, I agree to that, I believe that in the long run the producers may also lose profit because the goods produced may not yield the profit they desire since a some people are denied of their ability to buy.When manufacturers, over replace machinery with humans, a cycle or a chain will be broken, thus "more goods but less buyers market", so the manufacturers, may have restore the system by returning humans to work before the manufacturers can stay on the market. I believe taxing robot may not solve the problem, but the market forces, demand and supply of goods and services will solve the problem naturally.


1. Simon thinks that a robot tax is worth exploring because robots are replacing the world's workforce in a broader way. In other words, many citizens will lose their jobs and income in the future. Apparently, the government will also lose their revenue from property taxes, sales taxes, and income taxes since people are unaffordable to spend money. Therefore, Simon raised up a question on whether a robot tax should be applied to solve this problem.

The first obstacle to developing such a tax is to have a clear definition of what a robot is exactly. Also, we have to come to a consensus on whether to charge the robot tax based on the productivity of the robots or the complexity of the robots.

These are the issues that we really have to spend time on thinking about as we may face this robot dominative era in the near future.

3. Simon shows readers who should care about this issue by involving everyone at the beginning which he states "cheaper than you or I", has implicitly indicated that everyone cannot escape from this. This arouses the interest of readers as it gets involved to them.

Furthermore, Simon relates the individual unemployment to government's descending revenue which connects oneself to his or her country from a higher scope.

He brings out his main idea gradually that is to advocate the robot tax by pointing out the problem, government's decreasing revenue to attract the readers to pay attention to this issue. Besides, he gives statistics that 37 percent of the workforce isn't working anymore. It makes readers have a better understanding of how crucial this problem will have an impact on the country.

In conclusion, I think Simon has depicted why we should care about this issue in a progressive way by involving oneself from losing the job to a wider perspective to the country, on declining revenue. All of these happen to result from the appearing of the robots that makes people be redundant in the workforce. Thus, Simon gives a solution, to advocate the robot tax. He brings out his point naturally and keeps readers following up his logic by thinking from the perspective of readers.

Maddie Corl

3. Simon shows why the aspect of lost tax revenue is important to consider by repeatedly pointing out that the government will lose one third of its revenue if robots take over the work force. He indicates who cares by alluding to roboticists, city supervisors, and other officials who would be affected by the implication of robots to complete tasks. He also establishes why his claims matter by asking the reader to consider the public works people would be losing if the government did not receive taxes from workers.

Comment: Simon does not seem to have a reasonable idea for how the robot tax would work. Since robots cannot pay for themselves, another person would have to pay for them without being able to profit from working. Companies would also be gaining revenue because they would not have to pay their employees; perhaps some of that extra money could be going towards government fundings.

Analisa  Varricchio

I think that the idea of taxing robots is not practical because they are just machines that are more efficient and if robots were taxed than couldn't it be argued that all machines be taxed?


He shows how the loss of jobs will effect the economy by lowering taxes and values in the market. He discusses what will occur if robots do become a prominent part of work life, mentioning how a tax will only harm the economy more than it is already being harmed by people who are unwilling to work. By taxing robots, the economy will only be following a path to devastation. He also mentions a politician to reveal that this tax is not only an important item for ordinary citizens, but for politicians and those in positions of power as well. Overall, this article was very enlightening and clarified the extent of the tax.

James Razzi

This is not a good idea. This is just another tax. Technology helps the workforce be more productive. The more product that goes out, the more money is gained. Taxing the robots will just take away from the money from people whom are "losing money" from robots. Taxes do not solve all problems.

victoria crawford

Simon shows that the aspect of automation taking away government taxes is important to consider by giving that audience examples such as, the money the government now does not have could have went to fixing roads. He uses templates that get the reader wondering why people should care then go on to answering why they should care and examples of what will be lost from the lack of taxes going into the government. These moves are effective by getting the audience to start thinking about all the factors that may affect them or places they care about.

Rachel Brennan

This article was interesting because I never realized robots were on the rise in modern society. I believe robot taxes should be implemented in order to increase the number of unemployment in the United States, and to allow the government to continue to thrive.

Riley Morrison

Adding tax to robots would be impractical since current functioning machines are not being taxed. Therefore the work would be done faster and more often. Making an improvement to the advancement of technology would better production.

Carol Ann Miller

I like how Simon takes a different turn approach and argues against robot tax because of the lost of tax revenue. It is a unique standpoint to argue by and manages to make a good argument and give solid examples and opinion.


Robot taxing would not benefit the economy in my opinion. We, as a country, would lose too much revenue that we make on a yearly basis.


The idea of taxing robots is not a very intellectual idea because the author, Matt Simon, does not describe any of the effects of this, rather just state it out of nowhere with no backup. Also, robots is just a smart, inatimat object and he does not discuss the criteria to fit these taxing- paying robots. Can robots be dishwashers, dryers, and microwave? He does not discuss the criteria.

Shane Owen

The idea of taxing the robots is not bad except for the fact that the robots have nothing to give except for product. They don't make wage or salary to gain tax revenue from. Also, though obvious as it may seem, the tax money that is from the robots, would not be from the robots. It would either be taken from product the robot helps manufacture, or it would be from the business who manufactured the robot. Simons allusions to the tech specialists who are most acquainted with the robots work because they have abundant interest in the success of the robots. Like others above exclaimed, taxing machines is extremely broad for the narrative. Taxes can not just be imposed on "robots". Robots is too broad of a term. The usage of the word robot would then have to be added onto the description of these robots. Tax the robots that take jobs of people across the nation, not random objects in your house. The effects Simon uses are effective but they do not come with much support. His opinions are hypothetical solutions to a present world problem. Yes he is right, a lot is lost with the replacement of humans in the workplace, but the method of taxing them is not effective.

Lope Rojas

Taxing robots just creates a more complex issue, such as the questions; will the machines now be taxed? What will happen to a worker's salary? Moreover, taxing robots will start to take away money from the people, and eventually, robots will be in place of workers. Taxing robots will just exacerbate the economy even more, and cause a domino effect for more issues to arise.

Frank Bosch

For me, the problem isn't whether or not there should be a tax on the robots - losing all the income that human workers would provide is a real problem, and a tax should be in place to solve it - the question is: who gets taxed? Obviously not the robots themselves, that just isn't possible (unless they were to pay the robots then take income tax, but it doesn't make sense to use this process on intimate objects). Rather, it is either the producer of the robots or those who use them to produce that should be taxed. Out of the two, I find myself leaning towards the taxing of the users, as they are the ones that have replaced the people that would normally supply tax funds. Slightly unrelatedly, if one robot does many jobs, it should be taxed for each one. That is, a robot should be taxed for as many people it has replaced.

David Phillips

Simon shows that lost tax revenue is important by describing how automation may one day take over a third of the US economy, and that the government could be losing out on 37% of its workforce. He shows the readers who cares about the robot tax by bringing in the opinion of San Francisco lawmaker Jane Kim. He also establishes why it matters by showing that the government will not be gaining anything from robots taking over the workforce without taxes placed on their work. Simon shows that if robots take over the economy, both the American people will be out of work, and the government will be losing out on a ton of money.
I think that a robot tax is necessary because without it Americans will be hurt, and after all, aren't robots supposed to be helping us? Robots and automation should be used to support the American people and government, not big businesses in a scheme to get a tax break.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)