If AI replaces workers, should it also pay taxes?

AI as Worker vs. Tool

• Many commenters reject the premise that “AI should pay taxes,” calling it anthropomorphizing.
• AI is likened to tractors, wheelbarrows, dishwashers, Photoshop, or automated looms: tools that boost productivity, not independent tax subjects.
• The more coherent version of the idea: don’t tax “AI itself,” tax the owners and profits from AI more effectively.

Jobs, Automation, and What’s Different This Time

• One camp argues automation has always “replaced jobs” (agriculture, manufacturing, retail) without long‑term mass unemployment; new sectors and roles emerged, living standards rose.
• Others say AI is qualitatively different: it targets cognitive/knowledge work, could move faster than past transitions, and may not leave enough “good jobs” behind.
• Some report already seeing white‑collar displacement (SaaS sales, designers, junior developers), while skeptics note current layoffs also track macro factors (end of cheap money, tax changes).
• A recurring worry: if AI eats both old jobs and the new high‑skill ones, average people lose almost all bargaining power.

Inequality, Capital, and “Who Owns the Machines”

• Large parts of the thread shift from AI to inequality: extreme wealth concentration, corporate and billionaire tax avoidance, and a tax base overly dependent on labor income.
• Core claim: the real problem isn’t that machines aren’t taxed; it’s that capital owners avoid paying for the states and social systems they rely on.
• Some propose wealth taxes, land taxes, higher or more effectively enforced corporate and capital‑gains taxes, or even hard caps/confiscation on extreme fortunes. Others stress practical difficulties, capital flight, and complexity of valuing assets.

Concrete Tax Ideas in an Automated Economy

• Suggestions include:
  • Higher corporate tax on profits boosted by automation; or formulas that increase tax when profit‑per‑employee or revenue‑per‑employee gets too high.
  • Disallowing or penalizing tax deductions for robots/AI that replace labor; adding heavy VAT or registration fees on commercial robots.
  • Taxing AI indirectly via energy, water, or compute (kWh, tokens processed), possibly with allowances for individuals and exceptions for favored uses.
  • Shifting overall burden from labor income to consumption, capital, land, and resource usage.
• Critics warn this “tax the tool” approach is arbitrary, hard to define (what counts as AI?), easy to game, and likely to push activity to low‑tax jurisdictions.

UBI, Social Safety Nets, and Meaning of Work

• Many see some form of UBI or guaranteed income as the logical response if AI really wipes out large swathes of employment; AI profits or broader capital taxes would fund it.
• Others doubt UBI’s effectiveness, affordability, or political viability, and note existing welfare systems already struggle.
• Several comments emphasize non‑economic dimensions: work structures society and identity; replacing it without offering meaningful alternatives risks psychological and social collapse.

Timing, Politics, and the “End Game”

• One side says debating AI‑specific taxes now is a distraction from present crises (housing, healthcare, existing inequality).
• Another insists early debate is essential to avoid an AI‑enabled plutocracy and to set expectations that gains from automation must be broadly shared.
• Underneath the tax talk is a deeper question: in a world where machines can meet most material needs with little human labor, do we redesign distribution—or let a tiny class that owns the machines effectively own everyone else?