Taxing automation cedes U.S. economic competitiveness.

In the long run, however, product development creates new employment opportunities, and the temporary mismatch between the employee's skill profile and the requirements of the job can be overcome. From this long-term perspective, there are strong instrumental reasons not to hinder the introduction of new technologies into the production processes:

Imagine a country that taxes the application of a specific labor-saving technology while its surrounding trading partners refrain from imposing such a restriction. As a result, the other economies become more competitive as they can export their goods at lower prices. The domestic industry would therefore suffer a decrease in demand. The jobs which are protected from technological progress by RT are now threatened by international competition [20]. The state could continue to protect its companies from international competition with the help of import regulations or customs tariffs. But this policy has two undesirable effects. First, those employed in the protected sector are relatively unproductive. They could create more economic value by working on other jobs. Second, the tax is likely to be fully passed on to the consumers through price increases, which reduces their real income.

Taxing technology is economically costly and, after all, it is the consumers who bear the cost. If automation is not taxed, the implementation of process innovation technology would in fact lead to a significant reduction in prices. But if the use of technology is prevented, potential price-reductions cannot occur. Now, the question from a viewpoint of distributive justice is the following: Is it justified to favor employees over consumers?Footnote2