在最近接受Quartz采訪時(shí)，微軟創(chuàng)始人比爾·蓋茨發(fā)表了一番驚人言論：搶走人類工作的機(jī)器人，應(yīng)該按與工人所得稅相等的金額納稅。

“現(xiàn)在，人類工人在工廠里工作，比如說(shuō)他創(chuàng)造了5萬(wàn)美元的價(jià)值，這筆收入會(huì)被征稅……如果一個(gè)機(jī)器人來(lái)做同樣的工作，你可能會(huì)認(rèn)為我們應(yīng)該按類似的水平對(duì)機(jī)器人征稅?！?

蓋茨稱，這筆稅費(fèi)將由機(jī)器人的所有者或制造者支付，用于資助勞動(dòng)力再培訓(xùn)。原有的工廠工人、司機(jī)和收銀員將進(jìn)入醫(yī)療服務(wù)、教育或人類工人的作用依舊非常重要的其他領(lǐng)域。蓋茨甚至建議，政策應(yīng)該有意識(shí)地“放緩采用[自動(dòng)化]的速度”，以提供更多的時(shí)間來(lái)管理更大范圍的轉(zhuǎn)變。

許多傳統(tǒng)經(jīng)濟(jì)理論或許會(huì)對(duì)這種相當(dāng)于對(duì)效率征稅的觀點(diǎn)深惡痛絕。數(shù)十年來(lái)，關(guān)于自動(dòng)化的主流觀點(diǎn)是，被機(jī)器人取代的工人將轉(zhuǎn)移到生產(chǎn)率更高的崗位，進(jìn)而帶動(dòng)整體經(jīng)濟(jì)的增長(zhǎng)。

但這種觀點(diǎn)已經(jīng)開始出現(xiàn)漏洞——正如蓋茨所說(shuō)：“人們說(shuō)機(jī)器人的到來(lái)是一種凈損耗”，需要更積極地投入就業(yè)再培訓(xùn)和其他面向受影響社區(qū)的項(xiàng)目。（但就業(yè)培訓(xùn)項(xiàng)目的效果依舊值得商榷。）

雖然蓋茨堅(jiān)決支持政府在管理自動(dòng)化的影響方面發(fā)揮作用，但他提出的兩條建議，對(duì)于自由市場(chǎng)主義者至少應(yīng)該有一定的吸引力。

首先，蓋茨指出，未來(lái)20年，機(jī)器人和人工智能的影響，將是整個(gè)20世紀(jì)普遍存在的穩(wěn)定的增量位移更為集中的版本。僅靠市場(chǎng)無(wú)法應(yīng)對(duì)轉(zhuǎn)變的速度，所以蓋茨進(jìn)一步認(rèn)為，要將自由勞動(dòng)力投入更好的使用，公共部門具有較大的潛力。

第二點(diǎn)，或許也是更重要的一點(diǎn)是，蓋茨認(rèn)為，如果遭到公眾的抵制，自動(dòng)化將無(wú)法順利發(fā)展?！叭绻麑?duì)于創(chuàng)新帶來(lái)的結(jié)果，人類的擔(dān)憂大于熱情，這將是非常糟糕的……而相比只是禁止其中的個(gè)別要素，納稅絕對(duì)是解決這個(gè)問(wèn)題更好的辦法?！?

換言之，蓋茨認(rèn)為，如果自動(dòng)化無(wú)法讓全體社會(huì)成員明顯受益，可能會(huì)誕生某種新型的盧德運(yùn)動(dòng)，技術(shù)因此受到的限制將遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)超過(guò)稅收所帶來(lái)的影響。

如果不相信，不妨看看我們周圍的情況。目前正在蔓延的一種觀點(diǎn)是，全球化帶來(lái)的好處并沒(méi)有得到良好或是公正的管理，這直接導(dǎo)致了支持建墻和提高關(guān)稅的政治勢(shì)力的復(fù)興。如果不能明智地解決自動(dòng)化的影響，這種情況或?qū)⒃谖磥?lái)重現(xiàn)。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

譯者：劉進(jìn)龍/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.