[thomas_howland]

Taxing "robots" is silly, mostly because it's impossible to define what a "robot" is in a remotely non-distortionary way or that doesn't require a horde of accountants to argue out.

Taxing "capital", by its monetary value, is much easier, and has a similar effect of promoting labor substitution. It's also universally despised by economists for the obvious reason that accumulating capital increases the return to labor under most models and makes everyone wealthier.

Of course California state politics are notoriously dumb, so who knows what'll happen.

[URSpider94]

Piketty and his collaborators being a notable and significant exception. https://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/piketty-saezNBER12optKtax.pdf

Taxing capital is hard, because it's mobile. Governments are afraid that if they tax wealth at a high rate, the wealth will just move elsewhere. Thus, most businesses get some sort of property tax abatement as part of an incentive to locate in a particular city or state.

[_5ysi]

But taxing capital would still be easier than taxing robot work, yes? Since taxing robots is effectively a tax on a difficult to define subset of capital

[URSpider94]

Not arguing with you there -- taxing robot work sounds almost nonsensical. If anything it would be a great jobs program for tax lawyers who will tie themselves in knots figuring out how to circumvent this ill-defined tax.

Taxing capital is very straightforward from a regulations standpoint. It's only hard in that the capital will tend to flee the tax.

[igravious]

Mooting a tax on one of the more futuristic by-products of technology makes you question both the nature of taxation and the essence of technology.