🔍 Read the full analysis: Will Robots Make Us All Rich? A Closer Look At Income Experiments on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Prime made for students and young adults
- Fast, free delivery for dorm and study essentials
- Prime Video and Amazon Music included
- Member-only deals
TL;DR
Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison said AI-generated value could be taxed to fund what he called “universal high income,” while acknowledging the idea is more than a decade away. South Korea is already testing a monthly rural payment, but past income experiments do not establish how a nationwide program would be funded or affect prices and work.
Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison proposed taxing value created by robots to help pay for what he called “universal high income,” while saying the change would take more than a decade. His comments at Oracle AI World in Las Vegas on October 27 came as South Korea’s rural basic income pilot is already paying eligible residents, offering a live but limited test of recurring public payments.
Ellison made the remarks during a question-and-answer session with Seema Verma, who leads Oracle Health and Life Sciences. According to reporting by TechRadar, Diginomica and Business Standard, he argued that predictions AI will replace every worker are “kind of nonsensical,” while conceding that some occupations, including taxi and ride-share driving, could be displaced. He compared automation to autopilot systems: planes use them, he said, but still have pilots.
Ellison’s central policy proposal was to shift taxation “from taxing human labor to taxing value added.” In his account, taxing value produced by robots could finance universal high income. He also invoked economist Milton Friedman’s negative income tax, a separate proposal under which people below an income threshold receive payments that decrease as their earnings rise. Ellison did not present a costed plan or a detailed tax design. The reports say he acknowledged implementation would take more than a decade.
South Korea’s agriculture ministry describes its initiative as a rural basic income pilot. Since February 2026, eligible residents in participating counties have received 150,000 won a month in local gift vouchers. The source material says the pilot covers residents in 17 of 69 counties designated by the government as losing population, and is scheduled to run through 2027. Eligibility is not means-tested and does not require recipients to be out of work; residency conditions apply.
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
Who Pays When Robots Produce More
The debate is about more than whether automation raises productivity. It concerns who owns the productive systems, who receives the resulting income and whether governments can collect enough revenue to distribute a share. If machines reduce labor costs while returns accrue mainly to owners, wages and employment-based taxes could face pressure even as output grows. That is the policy problem behind Ellison’s proposal, not proof that a new tax would automatically make everyone wealthier.
The scale of a universal payment would be substantial. The source article estimates that paying $1,000 a month to every U.S. adult would cost about $3.1 trillion annually, compared with $5.40 trillion in federal receipts for fiscal 2026. That is the author’s arithmetic, not an official program estimate, and it does not account for possible tax changes, eligibility design or offsets. The comparison nevertheless shows why a broad promise needs details on revenue and costs.
Prices also matter. An International Labour Organization research brief cited in the source warns that added purchasing power could raise prices in sectors where AI does not increase supply, including housing and care. A cash payment may improve household income, but its real value depends on what recipients can buy and how the policy is financed.
Popular right now
Bose QuietComfort Wireless Noise Cancelling Headphones, Sandstone
Bose QuietComfort Ultra Wireless Noise-Cancelling Headphones with Spatial Audio, Black
Dyson Airwrap i.d. Multi-Styler for Straight and Wavy Hair
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
A Pilot and Earlier Income Trials
South Korea’s pilot is a geographically limited program, not a national income guarantee and not a test of taxes on AI. In 2026, the national government funds 40% of its cost, the province 30% and the county 30%, according to the supplied material. For 2027, the agriculture ministry has proposed a 50/25/25 split and participation by about 18 additional counties. That expansion remains subject to a parliamentary budget vote.
Past income experiments offer evidence about recipient behavior, but none directly tests Ellison’s proposed funding model. The U.S. OpenResearch study reported in the source found that a $1,000 monthly payment reduced recipients’ earnings by about $1,900 a year and work by one to two hours a week. Finland’s trial showed little change in employment, while a Kenya study found some participants shifted from wage work toward their own businesses. These are results from different places and study designs, not a single forecast for a national policy.
Nor is value-added taxation itself a new instrument. The source notes that a value-added tax is used in other OECD economies, while the United States relies primarily on state and local retail sales taxes rather than a federal VAT. Ellison’s proposal is distinctive in the scale and purpose he suggests: using taxes on economic value associated with automation to finance broad payments.
“We need to change from taxing human labor to taxing value added.”
— Larry Ellison, Oracle co-founder, as reported by TechRadar and Diginomica
The Missing Tax and Cost Details
Ellison did not specify which taxes would apply, how rates would be set, how much revenue they could raise or how payments would be distributed. The remarks do not establish that taxes on robot-generated value could fund a particular income level. They also do not amount to an Oracle corporate policy: Diginomica reported that the idea was not an Oracle strategy and disclosed that Oracle is its partner.
South Korea’s pilot can show how a defined local payment operates, but it cannot settle the national-scale questions raised by Ellison’s proposal. The supplied information does not provide outcome data from the pilot, such as its effects on employment, local prices or population retention. The 2027 funding proposal and additional counties are not final pending the budget process.
Results from earlier experiments also cannot be combined into a single expected effect. Their payment levels, duration, populations and economic conditions differ. It remains unclear how widespread automation would affect tax receipts, wages, consumer prices and the demand for care or housing.
South Korea’s 2027 Budget Decision
The next concrete decision in the source material is South Korea’s parliamentary vote on the 2027 budget. If approved, the ministry’s proposal would change the funding shares and add about 18 counties; until then, those changes remain proposed rather than confirmed. The pilot is scheduled to continue through 2027, with its eventual results needed to judge its effects beyond the fact that payments are being made.
For Ellison’s proposal, the next steps would be political and technical: specifying what counts as value created by automation, deciding how it is taxed and publishing estimates of revenue, distribution and economic effects. No such plan or implementation timetable beyond his “more than a decade” estimate was identified in the source reporting.
Key Questions
What did Larry Ellison propose?
He suggested shifting taxation from human labor toward value added by robots and using the revenue to fund what he called “universal high income.” He did not provide a detailed tax or payment plan.
Is South Korea already paying a national basic income?
No. The program described is a rural pilot in selected counties, paying eligible residents 150,000 won monthly in local gift vouchers. It is not a nationwide guarantee.
Do previous income trials show that payments stop people working?
No single conclusion applies to every trial. The cited U.S. study found a modest reduction in work and earnings, Finland’s employment results barely moved, and a Kenya study reported movement from wage work toward self-employment.
Has Ellison’s proposal been adopted by Oracle or a government?
The source reporting presents it as an idea raised by Ellison, not an Oracle strategy or an adopted government policy. The South Korean pilot is a separate program and does not use the proposed AI-value tax described by Ellison.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
