Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Bluetus

(2,710 posts)
7. Brilliant idea, wrong argument
Fri Mar 13, 2026, 12:52 PM
Friday

We don't tax just to discourage. We tax to fund our society. We tax the income of workers under the theory that they are adding value and that added value is the fairest thing to tax.

With AI, it should be exactly the same thing, except that the AI and bots don't draw a salary. It is a stretch to tax the use of AI, bots and agents. But what makes perfect sense is to tax that value chain upstream at its origin.

For example, if a company sells a LLM solution to another company with the proposition that it will allow them to eliminate 40 customer support employees, then there should be a tax at the origin. The builder/seller of this tech should be taxed:
*** 40 employees X
*** useful life of the solution (10 years) X
*** Average salary of the displaced workers ($50,000) X
*** the normal income tax rate (say, an effective rate of 20%)

In other words, when selling this solution, either the seller or the buyer should be liable for a tax assessment of FOUR MILLION DOLLARS. In addition, the AI seller should be responsible for unemployment insurance, FICA and the other payroll taxes the displaced workers would have paid.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Andrew Yang says we shoul...»Reply #7