Both Democrats and Republicans are suggesting equity/wealth sharing schemes with AI companies. What's behind it.
Last edited Sat Jun 6, 2026, 03:56 PM - Edit history (1)
I posted here about Bernie Sanders' recent opinion piece in the NYT:
Bernie Sanders: The Public Should Own Half of the Big A.I. Companies (NYT, 6/1/2026)
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100221274490
A Forbes article today has more on suggestions from both parties. Link and excerpt below.
But before I post this, there are three very important points to understand.
1) The AI industry isn't really profitable. OpenAI, Anthropic and other AI companies have seen their AI tools widely adopted only because they've been subsidizing AI use, allowing customers to use their AI tools for free or only a small fraction of what that compute, that AI use, actually costs the companies. Only this year have they begun to charge some of their customers more, resulting in widespread complaints from businesses and individuals alike. Ed Zitron in particular has done devastating analyses of how unsustainable the AI industry's business model is. For instance:
https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-subprime-ai-crisis-is-here/
https://www.wheresyoured.at/ais-economics-dont-make-sense/
https://www.wheresyoured.at/ai-doesnt-have-roi/
The AI bubble has been maintained by hype, deceit, delusion and circular financing.
2) The main reason both AI bros and conservatives are willing to talk about possible profit-sharing - or something that theoretically might be profit-sharing - is to shield the industry from any sort of meaningful regulation being discussed now, so regulations can be painted as interference with the industry becoming more and more successful and all Americans becoming wealthier.
3) Any framework that supposedly gives all the American people a share of profits is also likely to make all of us responsible for subsidizing the industry whenever it appears to be necessary.
If you really think AI bros and rightwingers want truly fair sharing, I suggest you read more about them.
From Forbes today, on various proposals for UBC (universal basic capital) as well as wealth funds and UBI:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2026/06/06/could-americans-build-wealth-through-ai-why-trump-may-be-considering-equity-sharing-scheme/
It’s unclear how far along the Trump administration’s talks with AI leaders about any potential equity-sharing plans are, NOTUS reports, or what companies could be involved beyond OpenAI. The White House has not yet responded to a request for further comment. Sanders is expected to formally unveil his bill for a new AI tax in the coming weeks. The progressive senator’s legislation is likely a long shot to pass the GOP-controlled Congress, though with even some Republicans backing UBC policies, it remains to be seen if it could gain steam. Newsom’s executive order only directs the California government to start studying UBC proposals, so any state-level action on the issue is likely a longer way off, and it remains to be seen if any other states could follow through with similar orders of their own.
It’s different from Universal Basic Income, which refers to the government just giving regular cash payments to people, which has also enjoyed some political popularity in recent years. The Berggruen Institute, a think tank that’s been a vocal champion of UBC, described it broadly as a large wealth fund that people could invest in and get returns from, with some kind of state sponsorship. Beyond that, it’s unknown how the investments would be focused: OpenAI’s proposal for a Public Wealth Fund suggests every citizen should receive a fund with “diversified, long-term assets that capture growth in both AI companies and the broader set of firms adopting and deploying AI,” and get regular returns off the AI industry’s success, while NOTUS’ reporting suggests the federal government would acquire stakes in a few specific individual companies. Other UBC proposals have taken a less AI-focused approach and instead suggested more generally providing investments in broad index funds like the S&P 500. Separate from his reported talks with the Trump administration, Altman has also proposed the idea of “universal basic compute,” in which people would own a fraction of the processing power behind a model like ChatGPT. They could then use that processing power to fuel their own work with AI, or sell it off for a profit.
-snip-
“We don’t need charity, we need ownership—Universal Basic Capital,” Newsom said at an event in May, claiming voters are “demanding” a more wealth-based model. “You cannot save democracy unless we democratize the economy.” Sanders touted the concept of redistributing wealth back to Americans in an op-ed for The New York Times on Monday that rolled out his plan for a new AI tax, with Sanders arguing a wealth sharing-based model “would guarantee that the trillions of dollars potentially generated by AI are used to improve the lives of all of us — not simply to make the richest people in the world even richer.” The Vermont senator’s AI announcement this week also came after he previously proposed a “robot tax” on AI companies that would be redistributed back specifically to workers whose jobs were displaced by AI, along with a requirement for businesses to give workers a substantial stake in their employer. Other Democrats have sponsored pro-universal basic income legislation that would guarantee income to Americans, including Reps. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., and Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, D-N.J. But many of the progressive Democrats who have favored these policies also expressed skepticism that tech leaders like Musk and Altman would ultimately support them. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., told Semafor in April, “I am skeptical about their willingness to pay or incur the taxes necessary to sustain such proposals, which would have to target AI,” while Watson Coleman told the outlet she believed billionaires’ support isn’t “out of charity,” but rather “out of business.”
Former Trump advisor Steve Bannon touted the Trump administration’s talks with OpenAI in comments to NOTUS, though he agreed with Sanders that the government should levy a large tax on AI companies rather than work out an arrangement that’s more beneficial to the companies. The government “should not take ‘tip money’” from AI companies “but force them to cough up 50% of the equity — to be dispersed to American citizens,” Bannon told NOTUS. Ramaswamy wrote in his Times op-ed that government-backed investment funds would be a “practical solution” to combat social unrest against the wealthy, because “instead of lambasting millionaires,” people “would be on the way to becoming millionaires” through compounding wealth. The Trump administration and Congress also enacted “Trump Funds” last year that follow a similar principle, which Ramaswamy described as an “early positive step,” giving children a $1,000 fund that will compound as they grow up. That plan was pushed through Congress by Republicans like Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who said the funds allow “every child in America [to] experience the miracle of compound growth.” For Republicans—who have historically been more opposed to government assistance—the allure of these programs appears to lie in how they could use capitalism to help unseat other government benefits. Cruz suggested the “Trump Funds” could be a new form of Social Security, and Ramaswamy similarly insisted such investment accounts could eventually replace other government payouts and be a way for people to “[wean] themselves off the federal welfare state.” The general concept of state-backed investment funds has also been touted by Trump-friendly billionaires like hedge fund manager Bill Ackman, who has supported giving children investment accounts that will compound as they grow.
-snip-
Much more at the link, including about rightwing voices like venture capitalist Marc Andreessen and the Heritage Society and Cato Institute being very opposed to any sharing of wealth.
The article also points out that Trump's idea for sharing AI wealth might not involve dividends for individual Americans, but instead could mean the government's share being used for some "public purpose" - and we've seen Trump's ideas about that.
Most important, though, is that ALL these proposals are built on the fantasy that the AI industry is profitable and will become even more profitable, rather than being dishonest companies peddling heavily subsidized and inherently flawed technology built on stolen intellectual property the AI companies are determined to never pay for. (And that just reminded me that the "share the wealth" proposals will also be used by the AI companies as arguments against specifically compensating the people whose work was stolen to train AI.)
= new reply since forum marked as read
