Siggi Hagedorn from Hemhofen wrote to us about the editorial by deputy editor-in-chief Günter Herkommer:

First of all, I would like to give you some positive feedback on the first 'Robotik Quaterly '. A technically highly interesting field that will occupy and move us all - and I don't just mean us as technicians and engineers. So I'm already looking forward to the second issue.

I still belong to the generation of engineers who started their careers with the first wave of industrial robots. While many of my peers took the direct route into social professions in the mid-1980s or sometimes got involved in development aid projects, the social spirit of the time ultimately led me to automation technology. The humanization of the world of work was then, and still is today, an objective for me as a technology-savvy person that can motivate me on a daily basis in the context of robotics.

With the 'renaissance' of the topic of robotics, I am pleased that, in addition to the technical discussion, the overall social discourse is also being revived. When an entrepreneur par excellence like Bill Gates takes up the not-so-new idea of taxing robot labor, I think it is wrong to reflexively reject the idea on the principle that such an approach has never worked before.

The question as to why the performance of a certain task involves a not inconsiderable amount of wage tax on human labor and why the equivalent work of a robot does not result in a comparable flow of money for the benefit of the general public is initially quite plausible and legitimate. Just as the general public invests in the training of future generations in the expectation that the trainees will in turn ensure a return on investment through later tax payments, it can also be expected that the establishment of innovative robot technology, which is at least supported or co-financed by the general public, will ensure an equivalent, downstream cash flow.

In view of the technologies and business models envisaged by Industry 4.0, a fair robot tax seems perfectly feasible today. For example, it is natural for us to apply different tax rates to human labor depending on performance. Everyone contributes to the common good according to their actual performance. Why should this not be possible for robots? For example, recording robot operating hours including a performance factor would be much fairer than taxing motor vehicles according to a trivial engine capacity formula - which, incidentally, is ultimately also a form of machine taxation!

Incidentally, a robot tax based on work performance would significantly increase the social acceptance of robot systems. Because if the robot tax is dedicated to the transformation process, then those directly affected in working life would also see the positive aspect. And an entrepreneur who only pays tax on his robot when it is actually working would certainly have no problem with a robot tax - a classic win-win situation!

Finally, a look back shows that the financing of the common good has of course changed again and again over the centuries: taxes have been invented and abolished again. The current strong reliance of the tax system on the taxation of human labor does not appear to be sustainable in the long term. In other words, a robot tax could help to reduce the asymmetry of financing for the common good. Last but not least, I would like to refer to the comments made by Joe Kaeser - whom I consider to be one of the masterminds of German industry: According to him, at least the farewell to the wage tax state would be set in the context of the digitalization wave!