Listen to this article in summarized format

Taxation similarly has a two-stage dynamic with AI. So long as productivity gains of AI are attributable to human beneficiaries, the existing tax regime will suffice. If AI systems become sufficiently intelligent, they could hypothetically run enterprises, and a different form of taxation would be called for. This may be far into the future, but a more pressing adjustment could be needed regarding income-tax. AI has begun to displace humans in enterprises, with consequential effects on tax revenue. Here, implications are continuous and tied to the rate of AI adoption.
Impact of job displacement will show up both in terms of tax forgone and in higher transfer payments to manage shifts in overall employment. The fiscal stress can be mitigated through taxes on consumption where AI agents are embedded in productive activity. This does not affect the pace of AI adoption as much as taxing the underlying capital structures does. Here, too, a point can hypothetically be reached where AI agents become consumers of economic output, and consumption taxes may not serve the original intent. For now, though, consumption taxes will have to carry more fiscal weight. These policy implications possess an urgency that lawmakers may not be fully appreciating. Several countries have initiated the process of adjustment. But it favours prioritising advancement in the AI race over the effects on governance and government revenue.
(Catch all the Business News, Breaking News, and Latest News Updates on The Economic Times.)
Subscribe to The Economic Times Prime and read the ET ePaper online.
(Catch all the Business News, Breaking News, and Latest News Updates on The Economic Times.)
Subscribe to The Economic Times Prime and read the ET ePaper online.


