🔍 Read the full analysis: Will AI’s Wealth Be Shared? What Basic Income Trials Suggest on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get the latest gadgets delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
TL;DR
Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison said AI and robots could support “universal high income” if taxes shifted from human labor to value added, while acknowledging the idea would take more than a decade. South Korea is testing monthly payments in rural counties, and earlier trials suggest cash does not usually stop people working—but the results do not settle how an AI-era program could be funded or what it would cost.
Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison said on October 27 that taxes on value added by robots could help fund “universal high income,” while South Korea is already testing monthly payments for residents of selected rural counties. The remarks were a policy suggestion, not an Oracle plan; the Korean pilot offers a live example of cash support, but it does not test the proposed taxation of AI or establish how a nationwide program would be paid for.
Speaking at Oracle AI World in Las Vegas, Ellison argued that economies may need to rely less on taxing human labor as automation expands. “We need to change from taxing human labor to taxing value added,” he said, according to reporting by TechRadar, Diginomica and Business Standard. He said that taxing value created by robots could make “universal high income” possible, and added that such a change would take more than a decade.
Ellison also said predictions that AI would replace everyone were “kind of nonsensical,” while acknowledging that particular jobs, including taxi and ride-share driving, could be replaced. His comments came during a question-and-answer session with Seema Verma, who leads Oracle Health and Life Sciences. Diginomica reported that the tax ideas were not Oracle strategy; the outlet also disclosed that Oracle is one of its partners.
South Korea’s rural basic income pilot provides eligible residents in 17 of the country’s 69 designated population-loss counties with 150,000 won a month—about $112, according to Yonhap’s conversion—in local gift vouchers. The program began in February 2026 and is due to continue through 2027. In 2026, the national government funds 40% of the cost, the province 30% and the county 30%. A proposed change for 2027 would shift the shares to 50%, 25% and 25%, and add about 18 counties, subject to parliament’s budget decision.
Infographic 01 · Two ideas of a basic income
A promise for the future, a test running now
What Oracle’s co-founder proposed on stage, and how South Korea’s rural basic income actually works and who funds it.
The promise
Larry Ellison, Oracle AI World, Las Vegas, 27 Oct 2026 (as reported)
- Robots build a house: if labor was 80% of the cost, the house gets 80% cheaper
- Change from taxing human labor to taxing value added
- Tax what robots add, fund a “universal high income”
- AI replacing everyone is “kind of nonsensical”
- No amounts, no costing, “more than a decade”
“We need to change from taxing human labor to taxing value added.”Larry Ellison, as quoted by TechRadar, Diginomica and Business Standard
The test
South Korea’s rural basic income pilot, 2026–2027
- Every citizen registered and living in a pilot county for 30+ days
- No means test, no job requirement; newcomers wait 90 days
- Paid as a local gift voucher (card or phone), not cash
- Expires after 3 months (towns) or 6 months (townships)
- Max ₩50,000 at gas stations, convenience stores, co-op supermarkets
- 10 counties from February, 7 more from 28 August; about 18 more planned for 2027
Who pays in 2026
Share of the ₩150,000 base payment
Proposed for 2027
Ministry’s budget proposal; parliament decides
Some counties add their own money: Gurye, Boseong and Cheongsong pay ₩200,000, Boeun ₩160,000 (ministry, 25 Aug). The ministry puts the total cost of the 2026–27 pilot at about ₩3.09 trillion.
Sources: TechRadar, 30 Oct · Diginomica, 27 Oct · Business Standard, 28 Oct · Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs: MAFRA, 10 Feb, 11 Jun, 25 Aug, 8 Oct 2026.
Powered by Thorsten Meyer AI
Funding Income in an Automated Economy
The proposal addresses a distribution problem that could grow if automation changes who earns wages and who owns productive assets. Taxing value created by machines is one possible answer, but Ellison did not specify a tax design, payment amount, eligible population or financing estimate. The broader question for workers and governments is whether gains from automation will flow mainly to owners of technology or be distributed more widely.
Past trials provide evidence about how people respond to cash, not a direct forecast of what an AI-funded income program would do. In the US OpenResearch study, recipients of $1,000 a month earned about $1,900 less per year and worked one to two fewer hours a week. Finland’s trial showed little change in employment, while Kenya’s program was associated with some recipients shifting from wage work toward their own businesses. Those results differ by place and program, and cannot by themselves establish the effects of a permanent national policy.
Cost is a separate constraint. The source article estimates that paying $1,000 a month to every US adult would cost about $3.1 trillion a year, compared with $5.40 trillion in federal receipts in fiscal 2026. That is an estimate based on the article’s arithmetic, not a government cost projection. An International Labour Organization research brief also warns that additional purchasing power could raise prices in areas where supply does not expand, including housing and care.
Products Worth Considering
Jackery Explorer 300 Portable Power Station, 292Wh
Amazon Kindle Paperwhite Signature Edition (12th Generation, 2024), 32 GB, Metallic Black
Logitech MX Keys S Wireless Keyboard, Graphite
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
From Robot Taxes to Rural Payments
Ellison’s proposal draws on existing policy ideas rather than a published plan. He referred to economist Milton Friedman’s negative income tax, under which people below an income threshold receive payments that decline as earnings rise. A value-added tax is a different mechanism: it is charged as goods and services gain value through production and sale. The source material says the United States relies on state and local retail sales taxes rather than a federal VAT, while other OECD members use VAT systems.
Taxing value created by automation has also been raised by other technology leaders. TechRadar has reported that Elon Musk has floated related ideas, and Sam Altman’s 2021 essay, “Moore’s Law for Everything,” argued for taxing capital and land rather than labor. These proposals share a concern about how gains from technology are distributed, but they do not amount to an agreed policy or a single model for funding payments.
South Korea’s pilot is narrower and designed for rural areas facing population decline. According to the source material, eligible applicants must be Korean citizens who have been registered and actually living in a participating county for at least 30 days before applying. The payment has no means test or job requirement; people who work or study elsewhere must still live in the county at least three days a week. It is therefore a place-based program, not a nationwide universal income scheme.
““We need to change from taxing human labor to taxing value added.””
— Larry Ellison, Oracle co-founder, as reported by TechRadar, Diginomica and Business Standard
The Unpriced Questions Remain
Ellison did not lay out a specific tax, explain how its rate or tax base would be set, or provide a cost estimate for “universal high income.” It is also unclear how a tax on value added by robots would interact with existing taxes on consumption, corporate income or capital. The cited outlets reported the remarks, but Oracle’s event replay is behind an account login, and their wording differs slightly beyond the core sentence.
The Korean pilot’s eventual effects are still developing: it began in February 2026 and is scheduled to continue through 2027. The source material does not provide final outcome data on household finances, employment, local prices or population retention. Nor does it establish that a rural voucher program would produce the same results as a national cash payment financed through automation-related taxes.
The proposed Korean funding shares and expansion for 2027 are not final; they depend on parliament’s budget vote. More broadly, estimates of a universal payment depend on who qualifies, how much each person receives and whether other benefits are replaced. Those design choices would affect both the public cost and the distribution of any gains.
Pilot Results and Budget Decisions
South Korea’s immediate next step is its 2027 budget decision, which will determine whether the proposed funding split and expansion to about 18 additional counties proceed. The pilot is set to run through 2027, giving officials time to collect evidence on how the vouchers affect residents and participating communities. Final findings and the timing of any public evaluation are not specified in the source material.
In the United States, Ellison’s comments do not announce a legislative proposal or a timetable for action. Any move toward taxing automation would require decisions about what counts as value added by machines, who pays the tax and how revenue would be distributed. For now, South Korea’s trial and existing cash-transfer research can inform discussions about payment design, but they do not answer whether AI-generated wealth can reliably fund a lasting income guarantee.
Key Questions
What did Larry Ellison propose?
Ellison said governments may need to shift taxation away from human labor and toward value added by robots, with the revenue potentially supporting “universal high income.” He did not present a detailed tax plan, and the cited reporting says the idea is not Oracle strategy.
Who receives payments in South Korea’s pilot?
Eligible Korean citizens living in one of 17 participating rural counties receive 150,000 won a month in local gift vouchers. The source material says the program has no means test or job requirement, subject to residence rules.
Do basic income trials show that people stop working?
The cited studies do not show a uniform result. The US OpenResearch study found recipients worked one to two fewer hours per week on average, Finland’s trial showed little employment change, and Kenya’s program saw some participants move toward self-employment.
Is South Korea expanding the program in 2027?
The agriculture ministry has proposed a funding change and expansion to about 18 more counties, but the plan is subject to parliament’s budget vote. It is not yet confirmed as a final decision.
Would a robot tax pay for universal income?
That remains uncertain. Ellison did not provide a tax design or financing estimate, and the cited trials do not test revenue from AI or robots. The cost would depend on payment levels, eligibility and the tax base.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
