比尔·盖茨：机器人应该像人一样纳税

在最近接受Quartz采访时，微软创始人比尔·盖茨发表了一番惊人言论：抢走人类工作的机器人，应该按与工人所得税相等的金额纳税。

“现在，人类工人在工厂里工作，比如说他创造了5万美元的价值，这笔收入会被征税……如果一个机器人来做同样的工作，你可能会认为我们应该按类似的水平对机器人征税。”

盖茨称，这笔税费将由机器人的所有者或制造者支付，用于资助劳动力再培训。原有的工厂工人、司机和收银员将进入医疗服务、教育或人类工人的作用依旧非常重要的其他领域。盖茨甚至建议，政策应该有意识地“放缓采用[自动化]的速度”，以提供更多的时间来管理更大范围的转变。

许多传统经济理论或许会对这种相当于对效率征税的观点深恶痛绝。数十年来，关于自动化的主流观点是，被机器人取代的工人将转移到生产率更高的岗位，进而带动整体经济的增长。

但这种观点已经开始出现漏洞——正如盖茨所说：“人们说机器人的到来是一种净损耗”，需要更积极地投入就业再培训和其他面向受影响社区的项目。（但就业培训项目的效果依旧值得商榷。）

虽然盖茨坚决支持政府在管理自动化的影响方面发挥作用，但他提出的两条建议，对于自由市场主义者至少应该有一定的吸引力。

首先，盖茨指出，未来20年，机器人和人工智能的影响，将是整个20世纪普遍存在的稳定的增量位移更为集中的版本。仅靠市场无法应对转变的速度，所以盖茨进一步认为，要将自由劳动力投入更好的使用，公共部门具有较大的潜力。

第二点，或许也是更重要的一点是，盖茨认为，如果遭到公众的抵制，自动化将无法顺利发展。“如果对于创新带来的结果，人类的担忧大于热情，这将是非常糟糕的……而相比只是禁止其中的个别要素，纳税绝对是解决这个问题更好的办法。”

换言之，盖茨认为，如果自动化无法让全体社会成员明显受益，可能会诞生某种新型的卢德运动，技术因此受到的限制将远远超过税收所带来的影响。

如果不相信，不妨看看我们周围的情况。目前正在蔓延的一种观点是，全球化带来的好处并没有得到良好或是公正的管理，这直接导致了支持建墙和提高关税的政治势力的复兴。如果不能明智地解决自动化的影响，这种情况或将在未来重现。（财富中文网）

译者：刘进龙/汪皓

In a new interview with Quartz, Microsoft founder Bill Gates makes a rather stunning argument—that robots who replace human workers should incur taxes equivalent to that worker’s income taxes.

“Right now, the human worker who does, say, $50,000 worth of work in a factory, that income is taxed . . . If a robot comes in to do the same thing, you’d think that we’d tax the robot at a similar level.”

Gates argues that these taxes, paid by a robot's owners or makers, would be used to help fund labor force retraining. Former factory workers, drivers, and cashiers would be transitioned to health services, education, or other fields where human workers will remain vital. Gates even suggests the policy would intentionally “slow down the speed of that adoption [of automation] somewhat,” giving more time to manage the broader transition.

The idea of what amounts to a tax on efficiency would seem anathema to much conventional economic wisdom. For decades, the dominant line on automation has been that displaced workers shift into more productive roles, in turn growing the total economy.

But that thesis has begun to show cracks—as Gates puts it, “people are saying that the arrival of that robot is a net loss,” demanding greater active engagement with job retraining and other programs that target impacted communities. (Though the effectiveness of job training programs is still somewhat debatable).

While Gates resolutely comes down in favor of government’s role in managing automation’s impacts, he offers two points that should be at least slightly compelling to free marketeers.

First, Gates says, the impact of robotics and artificial intelligence in the next 20 years will be a much more concentrated version of the steady, incremental displacement that was common throughout the 20th century. The market alone won’t be able to deal with the speed of that transition—and, Gates further suggests, much of the potential for putting free labor to better use will be in the public sector.

Second, and probably even more importantly, Gates says automation won't be allowed to thrive if the public resists it. “It is really bad if people overall have more fear about what innovation is going to do than they have enthusiasm . . . And, you know, taxation is certainly a better way to handle it than just banning some elements of it.”

In other words, Gates believes that if automation doesn't clearly benefit all members of society, it could generate some sort of neo-Luddite movement that would restrain technology much more severely than any tax.

If you don’t believe him, just look around. The widespread belief that globalization’s benefits were poorly or unfairly managed has led directly to a political resurgence for fans of walls and tariffs. The same dynamic could repeat itself if automation isn't rolled out wisely.