Recently, a statement by Wang Xingxing, the founder of Yushu Technology, that “the government should tax robots” has sparked a huge online debate. The topic quickly trended, shaking the tech community and raising concerns among the general public about their wallets and livelihoods. This is not without reason—during the first half of this year, China’s industrial robot production surged by 35.6%, and service robots increased by 25.6%. The economic value created by robots now accounts for 1.2% of GDP. Even more astonishing is that this proportion is doubling every year. Robots create wealth but do not consume or pay social security? How should we coexist with machines in the future?
The large-scale application of robots is silently reshaping the employment landscape in manufacturing and service industries. They are efficient, precise, and tireless, yet they do not consume or pay social security. As robots “take away” human jobs, who will bear the tax and social security shortfall? Wang Xingxing’s proposal precisely strikes at the most sensitive nerve of this era.
The explosive growth of China’s robotics industry is widely recognized. In fields such as automotive manufacturing, electronics assembly, and logistics sorting, industrial robots have become the “main force” on production lines; while in areas like food delivery, hotel services, and healthcare, service robots are also rapidly penetrating. Statistics show that the number of jobs replaced by robots each year has reached millions, especially in industries with high repetition and labor intensity, where humans are gradually being replaced by machines.
However, the enormous profits generated by robots have not directly translated into public funds. They do not receive salaries, do not consume, and do not pay social security, leading to a significant challenge for the traditional tax system based on human labor. As Wang Xingxing stated:“Robots create value but do not bear social responsibility, which is clearly unsustainable.”
In fact, the concept of “robot tax” has already been discussed and practiced in several countries worldwide:①European Union: In 2017, the European Parliament proposed taxing robot owners to fund retraining for workers displaced by automation. Although the proposal was not ultimately passed, it sparked widespread attention.②South Korea: In 2017, it became the first country in the world to implement a “robot tax” by reducing tax incentives for automated companies, effectively taxing robots.③United States: Bill Gates has repeatedly publicly supported a robot tax, arguing that the government should use tax mechanisms to slow the pace of automation and provide transitional support for unemployed individuals.
These cases indicate that the core purpose of a robot tax is not to stifle technological innovation but to balance the social costs brought about by automation, ensuring that economic dividends benefit more people. For example, suppose an automotive manufacturing plant introduces 100 industrial robots, replacing 300 workers. These robots save the company 30 million yuan in labor costs annually, but the company does not need to pay social security for the robots, resulting in an annual loss of about 6 million yuan in social security contributions for the state. If a tax of 60,000 yuan per robot is levied, the total tax collected from 100 industrial robots would be 6 million yuan annually, which could cover the social security shortfall, while the company still enjoys 24 million yuan in cost savings. On the other hand, tax funds could be used for retraining unemployed workers, supporting entrepreneurship, or providing basic living guarantees, thereby alleviating social conflicts and promoting labor transformation.
The proliferation of robots is an irreversible trend. Instead of fearing their replacement of humans, we should consider how to design systems that allow machines to become tools for promoting social equity. As Wang Xingxing stated:“The significance of robots is not to replace humans but to liberate them.” Only through reasonable policy guidance can we truly move towards a future of human-machine collaboration and shared prosperity.
END
Author’s Profile:Ding Hao, male, born in December 1966, holds a bachelor’s degree in law from Nanjing University, and is a member of the Jiusan Society. He mainly engages in legal consulting, SHE consulting, and O.I innovation consulting, and is skilled at writing public opinions, information, proposals, and rational suggestions from the perspective of the public. If you encounter this article today, please follow the Faan Te WeChat public account.