<html><head></head><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:garamond, new york, times, serif;font-size:16px"><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1488262593151_12597"><span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1488262593151_12602">Warm greetings Barrack!</span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1488262593151_12597"><span><br></span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1488262593151_12597">I like your drift.</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1488262593151_12597"><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1488262593151_12597">This opens the tangent on sources of Government revenues.</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1488262593151_12597">I guess it also means the allocation of it to advance the utilisation between humans and tech R&D.</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1488262593151_12597"><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1488262593151_12597">Blessed day.</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1488262593151_12597"><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1488262593151_12597">Regards/Wangari</div><div></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1488262593151_12626"> </div><div class="signature" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1488262593151_12625">---<br><font style="font-weight:bold;font-family:verdana, helvetica, sans-serif;" size="2" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1488262593151_12661"><span style="color:rgb(127, 0, 63);">Pray God Bless. 2013Wangari circa - </span><span style="color:rgb(127, 0, 63);" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1488262593151_12660">"Being of the Light, We are Restored Through Faith in Mind, Body and Spirit; We Manifest The Kingdom of God on Earth".</span></font><br></div> <div class="qtdSeparateBR"><br><br></div><div class="yahoo_quoted" style="display: block;"> <div style="font-family: garamond, new york, times, serif; font-size: 16px;"> <div style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, Sans-Serif; font-size: 16px;"> <div dir="ltr"><font size="2" face="Arial"> On Tuesday, 28 February 2017, 7:56, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com> wrote:<br></font></div> <br><br> <div class="y_msg_container">Hi Wangari,<br clear="none"><br clear="none">When you buy a hoe you pay VAT, i guess the same applies to a Robot<br clear="none">which is a piece of equipment, ROBOTS cannot pay PAYE, they don't earn<br clear="none">a living<br clear="none"><br clear="none">Regards<br clear="none"><div class="yqt0072443325" id="yqtfd87295"><br clear="none">On 2/27/17, WANGARI KABIRU via kictanet <<a shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke" href="mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke">kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke</a>> wrote:<br clear="none">> Read on...<br clear="none">> Robots are taking human jobs, so should they pay up for what the human(s)<br clear="none">> would have?<br clear="none">><br clear="none">> Blessed day.<br clear="none">> Regards/Wangari ---<br clear="none">> Pray God Bless. 2013Wangari circa - "Being of the Light, We are Restored<br clear="none">> Through Faith in Mind, Body and Spirit; We Manifest The Kingdom of God on<br clear="none">> Earth".<br clear="none">><br clear="none">><br clear="none">> The robot that takes your job should pay taxes, says Bill Gates<br clear="none">><br clear="none">><br clear="none">><br clear="none">> |<br clear="none">> |<br clear="none">> |<br clear="none">> | | |<br clear="none">><br clear="none">> |<br clear="none">><br clear="none">> |<br clear="none">> |<br clear="none">> | |<br clear="none">> The robot that takes your job should pay taxes, says Bill Gates<br clear="none">> By Kevin J. Delaney The world's richest man is arguing for taxing and<br clear="none">> slowing automation. | |<br clear="none">><br clear="none">> |<br clear="none">><br clear="none">> |<br clear="none">><br clear="none">><br clear="none">> DROID DUTIES<br clear="none">> The robot that takes your job should pay taxes, says Bill Gates<br clear="none">><br clear="none">> Why Bill Gates would tax robots<br clear="none">> Quartz VideoWhy Bill Gates would tax robots0:001:40<br clear="none">> Share<br clear="none">><br clear="none">> Written by<br clear="none">> Kevin J. Delaney<br clear="none">> Obsession<br clear="none">> Machines with Brains February 17, 2017 Robots are taking human jobs.<br clear="none">> But Bill Gates believes that governments should tax companies’ use of them,<br clear="none">> as a way to at least temporarily slow the spread of automation and to fund<br clear="none">> other types of employment.It’s a striking position from the world’s richest<br clear="none">> man and a self-described techno-optimist who co-founded Microsoft, one of<br clear="none">> the leading players in artificial-intelligence technology.In a recent<br clear="none">> interview with Quartz, Gates said that a robot tax could finance jobs taking<br clear="none">> care of elderly people or working with kids in schools, for which needs are<br clear="none">> unmet and to which humans are particularly well suited. He argues that<br clear="none">> governments must oversee such programs rather than relying on businesses, in<br clear="none">> order to redirect the jobs to help people with lower incomes. The idea is<br clear="none">> not totally theoretical: EU lawmakers considered a proposal to tax robot<br clear="none">> owners to pay for training for workers who lose their jobs, though on Feb.<br clear="none">> 16 the legislators ultimately rejected it.“You ought to be willing to raise<br clear="none">> the tax level and even slow down the speed” of automation, Gates argues.<br clear="none">> That’s because the technology and business cases for replacing humans in a<br clear="none">> wide range of jobs are arriving simultaneously, and it’s important to be<br clear="none">> able to manage that displacement. “You cross the threshold of job<br clear="none">> replacement of certain activities all sort of at once,” Gates says, citing<br clear="none">> warehouse work and driving as some of the job categories that in the next 20<br clear="none">> years will have robots doing them.You can watch Gates’ remarks in the video<br clear="none">> above. Below is a transcript, lightly edited for style and clarity.Quartz:<br clear="none">> What do you think of a robot tax? This is the idea that in order to generate<br clear="none">> funds for training of workers, in areas such as manufacturing, who are<br clear="none">> displaced by automation, one concrete thing that governments could do is tax<br clear="none">> the installation of a robot in a factory, for example.Bill Gates: Certainly<br clear="none">> there will be taxes that relate to automation. Right now, the human worker<br clear="none">> who does, say, $50,000 worth of work in a factory, that income is taxed and<br clear="none">> you get income tax, social security tax, all those things. If a robot comes<br clear="none">> in to do the same thing, you’d think that we’d tax the robot at a similar<br clear="none">> level.And what the world wants is to take this opportunity to make all the<br clear="none">> goods and services we have today, and free up labor, let us do a better job<br clear="none">> of reaching out to the elderly, having smaller class sizes, helping kids<br clear="none">> with special needs. You know, all of those are things where human empathy<br clear="none">> and understanding are still very, very unique. And we still deal with an<br clear="none">> immense shortage of people to help out there.So if you can take the labor<br clear="none">> that used to do the thing automation replaces, and financially and<br clear="none">> training-wise and fulfillment-wise have that person go off and do these<br clear="none">> other things, then you’re net ahead. But you can’t just give up that income<br clear="none">> tax, because that’s part of how you’ve been funding that level of human<br clear="none">> workers.And so you could introduce a tax on robots…There are many ways to<br clear="none">> take that extra productivity and generate more taxes. Exactly how you’d do<br clear="none">> it, measure it, you know, it’s interesting for people to start talking about<br clear="none">> now. Some of it can come on the profits that are generated by the<br clear="none">> labor-saving efficiency there. Some of it can come directly in some type of<br clear="none">> robot tax. I don’t think the robot companies are going to be outraged that<br clear="none">> there might be a tax. It’s OK.Could you figure out a way to do it that<br clear="none">> didn’t dis-incentivize innovation?Well, at a time when people are saying<br clear="none">> that the arrival of that robot is a net loss because of displacement, you<br clear="none">> ought to be willing to raise the tax level and even slow down the speed of<br clear="none">> that adoption somewhat to figure out, “OK, what about the communities where<br clear="none">> this has a particularly big impact? Which transition programs have worked<br clear="none">> and what type of funding do those require?”You cross the threshold of<br clear="none">> job-replacement of certain activities all sort of at once. So, you know,<br clear="none">> warehouse work, driving, room cleanup, there’s quite a few things that are<br clear="none">> meaningful job categories that, certainly in the next 20 years, being<br clear="none">> thoughtful about that extra supply is a net benefit. It’s important to have<br clear="none">> the policies to go with that.People should be figuring it out. It is really<br clear="none">> bad if people overall have more fear about what innovation is going to do<br clear="none">> than they have enthusiasm. That means they won’t shape it for the positive<br clear="none">> things it can do. And, you know, taxation is certainly a better way to<br clear="none">> handle it than just banning some elements of it. But [innovation] appears in<br clear="none">> many forms, like self-order at a restaurant—what do you call that? There’s a<br clear="none">> Silicon Valley machine that can make hamburgers without human<br clear="none">> hands—seriously! No human hands touch the thing. [Laughs]And you’re more on<br clear="none">> the side that government should play an active role rather than rely on<br clear="none">> businesses to figure this out?Well, business can’t. If you want to do<br clear="none">> [something about] inequity, a lot of the excess labor is going to need to go<br clear="none">> help the people who have lower incomes. And so it means that you can amp up<br clear="none">> social services for old people and handicapped people and you can take the<br clear="none">> education sector and put more labor in there. Yes, some of it will go to,<br clear="none">> “Hey, we’ll be richer and people will buy more things.” But the<br clear="none">> inequity-solving part, absolutely government’s got a big role to play there.<br clear="none">> The nice thing about taxation though, is that it really separates the issue:<br clear="none">> “OK, so that gives you the resources, now how do you want to deploy it?”</div><br clear="none">><br clear="none"><br clear="none"><br clear="none">-- <br clear="none">Barrack O. Otieno<br clear="none">+254721325277<br clear="none">+254733206359<br clear="none">Skype: barrack.otieno<br clear="none">PGP ID: 0x2611D86A<br><br></div> </div> </div> </div></div></body></html>