I think the real risk isn’t just falling income tax, it’s a broken economic loop. If AI replaces people faster than they can earn, demand drops, consumption falls, and tax revenue shrinks across the board.
Taxing AI productivity sounds like a quick fix, but it’s a blunt tool and risks slowing adoption or pushing innovation elsewhere. The more durable solution is keeping people productive by helping them use AI to create more value. When workers are augmented rather than removed, incomes remain, spending continues, and the tax base evolves rather than collapsing.
In practice, AI adoption works best this way anyway. The most significant gains come from people doing more per person, not from eliminating humans. Governments that treat AI literacy as economic infrastructure will absorb the shock far better than those trying to tax their way around it.
This piece really made me think. How do you foresee gouvernements addressing the lack of AI-paid taxes given this profound revenue shift?
I think the real risk isn’t just falling income tax, it’s a broken economic loop. If AI replaces people faster than they can earn, demand drops, consumption falls, and tax revenue shrinks across the board.
Taxing AI productivity sounds like a quick fix, but it’s a blunt tool and risks slowing adoption or pushing innovation elsewhere. The more durable solution is keeping people productive by helping them use AI to create more value. When workers are augmented rather than removed, incomes remain, spending continues, and the tax base evolves rather than collapsing.
In practice, AI adoption works best this way anyway. The most significant gains come from people doing more per person, not from eliminating humans. Governments that treat AI literacy as economic infrastructure will absorb the shock far better than those trying to tax their way around it.