Meaning Of Smart Autonomous Robot †Free Samples FOR Students

Question: What Is the Meaning of Smart Autonomous Robot? Answer: Introducation There are several types of taxation in Australia. Persons and corporations are necessarily required to pay tax or they are charged at all stages of administration ranging from local, state and federal governments (Barkoczy, 2016). Duty are collected in order to reimburse for the community services and transport payment. Income tax can be defined as the most noteworthy forms of levy in Australia, which is collected by the federal government throughout the Australian taxation office. Income taxes are imposed on the persons on federal level and this forms for the most part an important foundation of income for the Australian government. Meaning of smart autonomous robot: A smart autonomous robot is referred as robot, which performs the behaviour or task with the greater level of autonomy. It is especially desirable in the fields such as spaceflight, households maintenance, treatment of wastewater and delivering goods and services. There are some kinds of modern robots, which are autonomous within the firm confinement of direct environment (Snape De Souza, 2016). It is noteworthy to denote that every ounce of freedom is existence in their surrounding environment however, the workplace of factory robots is challenging and might consist of chaotic, uncertain predicted variables. One of the important areas involving the research on robots is to provide the robot to cope with the environment whether it will be on land, in water or underground (Taylor Richardson, 2013). Argument for and against the proposal of tax on robots: Arguments for the proposal of taxing on robots The notion of implementing tax on robots was raised during the last May presented in the draft report to the European Parliament that was organized by the committee of legal affairs. Focussing on how the robots can result in disparity the report has projected that there can be a requirement to initiate commercial reporting requirement on the degree and amount of the contributions made by the robots to the economic outcomes of an organisation with the objective of tax and communal security contributions. The community reaction in Australia to the offer made has been tremendously unenthusiastic with noteworthy exemption made by Bill Gates who initially authorized the idea of taxing robots (Saad, 2014). However, the idea should not be completely dismissed of taxing robots. In recent years, it has been noticed that a proliferation of devices has been noticed such as Google Home and Amazon Echo that have replaced few of the household aspects in Singapore. If such of labour displacing innovations continuous to succeed, it surely calls for taxation. With growing frequency owing to the problems of humans that have risen when humans started to lose their job and often for jobs which humans have closely identified for which they might have spend years preparing. Several optimist in Australia have pointed out that technologies have replaced new jobs for humans however, as the revolution of robots have accelerated there has been constant amount of growing doubts regarding their continuity to gr owth (Petty et al., 2015). Implementing tax on robots helps in advocating the hope and may slow down the process at least temporarily. This might help in providing revenues to finance the programs for displaced workers. Critics of robots have focussed on the term of ambiguity of the definition of robot, which makes difficult in defining the tax base (Woellner et al., 2016). Critics have laid down their opinion by stating that new autonomous robots provide undeniable amount of benefits to the growth in productivity. However, it is should not be ruled quickly that modest robots tax in Australia at the time of transition in a diverse globe of job. Such kinds of taxation must form the element of wider plan to administer the cost of robot insurgency. All the taxes except the lump-sum duty bring about distortion in the economy. But no government should impose lump sum amount of tax (Morgan et al., 2016). The system of taxation should be such that it must be same for everyone irrespective of his or her income or expenditure. This is for the reason that it might fall mainly on those having less profits and it would pulverize the deprived who may not be able to pay tax at all. Discussion based on taxing robot must be considered as an alternative of dealing with growing disparity. It must be usual to believe the more progressive income tax and the basic income. However, such measures of taxing robots have not yet gained a widespread support. Hence, if the support is not wider the imposition of tax will not last (Robin Barkoczy et al., 2016). Taxes in Australia should be reframed to work as a remedy for income disparity introduced by robot. It should be politically accepted and sustainable to implement tax on robots instead of just imposing on people with high-income. While this may not impose tax individual achievement of human similar to income tax, it may lead to somewhat instances of higher taxes on higher income given that high income is earned in the activities which involves replacing the human beings with robots. In Australia a reasonable tax on robots and even implementing the provisional tax might merely slow down the adoption of robotic technolog y, which appears positive element of policy to address higher inequality (Barkoczy, 2017). Revenue can be targeted in the direction of wage insurance in order to help the individuals that are displaced by new technology making change to diverse career. This would help in according the natural sense of justice and are more probably to endure. Argument against taxing robots: Bill Gates in an unlikely luddite have provoked individuals to undertake the hammer to their computers. In the latest discussion with the Quartz, an online journal company have laid down their scepticism concerning the capability of the society to administer rapid automation (Braithwaite Braithwaite, 2016). In order to prevent the social crisis government must take into the considerations that robots must be taxed if automations results in impracticable idea. In the coming future robots with the help of their own consciousness, nest eggs and accountants might have to pay income tax unlike the rest of us. According to the argument laid down by Bill gates modern era robots must be taxed either in their translation or by the amount of profit generated by the firm through saving cost of displacing human robots (Tran-Nam Walpole, 2016). The money that is produced can be used in Australia to retain the workers and might be used to fund the development of health care and teaching that pro vides hard to mechanize jobs in lessons or caring for old and sick. A robot is considered as a capital investment just like blast furnace or a computer. Economist has characteristically advised against taxing robots, which enables a financial system to manufacture more (Kiprotich, 2016). Taxation, which determines investment in, believed to make individuals poor devoid of raising any sort of currency. Studies have suggested that investing in robots appears to suggest like making in investment in coal-fired generator. It materially helps in boosting the output of the economy but also leads to the imposition of social cost which economist have termed it as negative externality. Possibly speedy automation threatens to remove the workers from job at a rapid pace than the new sectors can take them up. This may ultimately lead to communally expensive long-term employment and potentially it may assist in destructive policy of government in Australia (Jones Rhoades, 2013). Taxing on robots that may well is worth applying just a tax on harmful blast finance emission can put off pollution and leave community better off. Realism is though regarded as more multifaceted. Making an investment in report can lead human workers more productive instead of being dispensable and imposing tax on them can lead to worse impact on the employees. Particularly workers might suffer by being evacuated by robots however; employees as a whole may be better off due to the fall in price. Slowing down the employment of robots in the areas of health care and herding humans in such kinds of jobs may be viewed as useful procedure of maintaining the stability in the Australian society (Miller Oats, 2016). One of the thorniest problems prevalent from the proposal of Mr Gates is that currently automation is not occurring at a rapid pace. The removal of workers from the introduction of machines might lead to an enhance in the rate of output with a rapidly rising economy. Ever since the rapid growth in the productivity during the late 1990 and in the early years of 2000 the economy of America has persistently disappointed on such measures. Studies have expressed their worries concerning the era of automation where machines have taken over the managing warehouses (Bello, 2016). However, with the abundant of cheap labour it might be viewed that organisations face very little pressure of investing in labour-saving technologies. The proposal of taxing robots, by raising the expenditure of robots in relation to human labour may further delay the overdue boom in productivity. When the process of automation turns out to be faster robots might not be right to target for tax. Automation can be regarded as the displacement of labour with capital. In order to save human beings from unemployment, the reasoning goes towards the economys share capital income needs in order to diver the removed workers. Expanding the ownership of capital is regarded as one of the strategy where individuals can own driverless car vehicle, which operates in the form of taxis, and rely on the flow of fares in the form of income. Taxing the robots and redistributing the profits is another method of expanding the ownership of capital (Prassler, 2016). However, with machines displacing the humans in the process of production their income would face the identical pressure that effects humans. The share of total amount of income paid in wages in proportion to the labour share has been on constant fall ever since the last decade. The abundance of labour is to be partly blamed and the owners of factors of production are shorter in supply. However, machines are not less abundant than people. Factories can churn out even complex contraptions since the cost involved in producing the second or millionth copy of a piece of software is roughly considered as zero. Abundant of machines will not prove capable of grabbing a fair share of market gains from the growth than abundant humans possess. The idea proposed by Bill Gates of taxing robots appears to be based on the notion of innovation and automation will only help in reducing the number of jobs available to humans. Commenting on a balance note, new technologies have created more jobs over the last 140 years instead of replacing as reported by the census data of 2015 and robotics are anticipated to participate in the similar opportunities (Caytas, 2017). Several prognosticators have indicated that technologies are regarded as both real and important and some jobs m ight disappear due to the introduction of robots however, the future of overall jobs is not regarded as gloomy. Perhaps with the introduction of smart robots it will help to spur more growth in new jobs along with the creation of entirely new categories of jobs. Getting the companies to pay large proportion of taxes will not help in solving the larger communal problems that robots will eventually remove the low skilled workers nor would a tax on robots. Instead, government must put their focus on corporate tax revenues in order to create a free and low cost education programs so that it can prepare individuals to work alongside of the robots. For those individuals who are not able to discover jobs government can provide universal basic income and other kinds of safety nets for the least advantaged. Arguments that is found to be more persuasive: As evident from the recent study of implementing tax on robots with the anticipations those robots would replace the large number of employees in the upcoming 20 years. By implementing tax on robots, it is argued there will be fall in the speed of economy with the introduction of robots and the funds that is generated can be put into use to absorb the removed workers by financially supporting them (Hemel Ouellette, 2014). The displaced workers can be moved in new jobs in the areas of wellbeing, teaching and other regions where individual labour is required. While Gates could be viewed correct that robots not just conventional business robots, but all kinds of simulated intellect application are more probable to mechanize a large number of works in the upcoming 20 years. Computerization is currently growing employment in large number of industries hence implementing tax on robots may simply slow down the growth and will restrict the prospect of expansion for millions. It is true that several industrialized jobs have been lost due to the computerization however several economist have estimated that a large number of decline in manufacturing is due to the fact that machines have took over the task of humans. Prior to the mid 20th century speedy mechanization in the textile industries and steel industries was accompanied with the help of robust employment growth. In the modern age when it comes to information technology, it is evident that there are still unmet demands in large number of industries due to the growing employment (Rimmer, 2017). In the non-manufacturing sectors, studies have represented that the use of information technology is related with the faster industry growth in employment. A large number of electronic document have automated much number of work and from the year 2000 full time employment for legal assistant and legal support occupations have witnessed growth of 1.1% each year quicker than the workforce. ATM has took over the work of handling of cash from bank tellers however bank teller employment in Australia has since witnessed growth. Although it is found that automation will result in further loss of job in manufacturing, warehouse operations and truck driving but in general impact of mechanization in most of the industries will lead to a rise in the employment. Even though the speed of advancement in robotics and artificial intelligence might increase over the next decade however the impact of change whether increase or decrease in employment is not dependent on technology but also on demand (Barkoczy, 2017). Overall, with the introduction of such technology will help in boosting employment since they will be addressing a large number of unmet demands. Nevertheless, there will negative and positive as well with some people will witness their jobs becoming outdated and will need to obtain new skills in order to get hold of well paid work. Hence, Gates is correct in providing funds to retrain workers and supporting them in order to make job transition. However, it can be concluded that taxing robots will only slow down the creation of job since automation is creating large number of jobs than destroying it. Part B: Particulars Amount ($) Name of the Asset Robots Base Value of the Assets ? 5,00,000.00 No. of. Days held 1095 Effective Useful life 8 Depreciation Amount ? 1,87,500.00 Total ? 1,87,500.00 Reference list: Barkoczy, S. (2016). Foundations of Taxation Law 2016.OUP Catalogue. Barkoczy, S. (2017). Foundations of Taxation Law 2017.OUP Catalogue. Bello, S. K. (2016). Robotics application in flexible manufacturing systems: prospects and challenges in a developing country. Braithwaite, V., Braithwaite, J. (2016). Managing taxation compliance: The evolution of the ATO Compliance Model. Caytas, J. D. (2017). European Perspectives on an Emergent Law of Robotics. Christie, M. (2015). Principles of Taxation Law 2015. Hemel, D. J., Ouellette, L. L. (2014). Research Tax Credits: An Important Tool.Science,343(6170), 485-485. Jones, S., Rhoades-Catanach, S. (2013).Principles of Taxation for Business and Investment Planning, 2014 edition. McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Kiprotich, B. A. (2016). Principles of Taxation.governance. Miller, A., Oats, L. (2016).Principles of international taxation. Bloomsbury Publishing. Morgan, A., Mortimer, C., Pinto, D. (2016). A practical introduction to Australian taxation law 2016. Petty, J. W., Titman, S., Keown, A. J., Martin, P., Martin, J. D., Burrow, M. (2015).Financial management: Principles and applications. Pearson Higher Education AU. Prassler, E. (2016). Robotics Academia and Industry: We Need to Talk.IEEE Robotics Automation Magazine,23(3), 11-14. Rimmer, M. (2017). The Wild West of Robot Law.Australasian Science. Robin Barkoczy Woellner (Stephen Murphy, Shirley Et Al). (2016).Australian Taxation Law 2016. Oxford University Press. Saad, N. (2014). Tax knowledge, tax complexity and tax compliance: Taxpayers view.Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,109, 1069-1075. Snape, J., De Souza, J. (2016).Environmental taxation law: policy, contexts and practice. Routledge. Taylor, G., Richardson, G. (2013). The determinants of thinly capitalized tax avoidance structures: Evidence from Australian firms.Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation,22(1), 12-25. Tran-Nam, B., Walpole, M. (2016). Tax disputes, litigation costs and access to tax justice.eJournal of Tax Research,14(2), 319. Woellner, R., Barkoczy, S., Murphy, S., Evans, C., Pinto, D. (2016). Australian Taxation Law 2016.OUP Catalogue.