Leo Hartman’s Robot Tax and Universal Basic Income Plan

A technology tycoon takes to the stage, vows to send cheques to everybody and prompts a countrywide argument over the meaning of “work”.

The idea has a science-fiction quality: tax robots and pay people. But the political reaction is immediately recognisable, reviving long-running disputes over fairness, effort and entitlement in an economy being transformed.

A billionaire’s radical proposal

At the centre of the controversy is Leo Hartman, a self-made billionaire whose wealth came from warehouse automation and AI logistics software. He now argues that the technologies that enriched him will soon put millions of everyday workers out of work.

In a converted Cleveland factory, surrounded by robotic arms and cameras, Hartman set out a proposal to recast the social contract: a national universal basic income (UBI), paid for by a wide-ranging “robot tax” on heavily automated businesses.

Hartman wants every adult citizen to receive a monthly payment of £900, no conditions attached, financed by new levies on companies that replace human workers with machines and AI.

“We taxed oil when it powered the last industrial revolution,” he told the crowd. “Now we tax automation. The gains from robots should go to everyone, not just shareholders.”

How Hartman’s proposed robot tax would operate

A draft document shared with policymakers and think tanks identifies several potential sources of revenue. Rather than placing a literal charge on each robot, it would target the additional profits created through automation.

• An additional charge on company profits above a specified “automation threshold”
• A levy on businesses with exceptionally high revenue-per-employee ratios
• A payroll tax on software and AI licences that directly substitute for staff positions
• Lower employer social contributions for companies that retrain or redeploy employees rather than making cuts

Hartman’s plan would require companies to declare how many roles automation removes each year. Businesses that eliminate substantial numbers of posts while lifting profits would face higher contributions to a national UBI fund.

The more a company leans on automation to shed jobs and boost margins, the more it would pay into the system that supports displaced workers.

Detractors have already raised the prospect of accounting manoeuvres and burdensome administration. Advocates respond that tax systems already monitor payrolls, capital spending and profits, so the real obstacle is political determination rather than technical design.

Universal basic income: unconditional money for everyone

The payment element is simple: all adult citizens would receive an identical sum every month, whether they have a job or not.

Hartman’s economists calculate that a complete programme would require just under 9% of GDP each year. They expect the robot tax to provide around two-thirds of that amount, while tax loophole closures and modest rises for very high incomes and capital gains would supply the remainder.

Element	Proposed level
Monthly UBI per adult	£900
Estimated annual cost	~9% of GDP
Share funded by robot tax	~65%
Coverage	All citizens 18+, no conditions

Current welfare schemes would not be removed immediately. Hartman’s advisers envisage an extended transition, during which certain targeted payments would continue, especially those for disability, housing and healthcare.

A nation divided almost evenly

Polls published just hours after Hartman’s address indicate a near-exact 50-50 divide. Backing is greatest among people under 35, renters and service-sector workers, while opposition is most common among older voters, small-business owners and high earners.

To supporters, the proposal represents fairness that has been delayed for too long. They envisage a future in which increased productivity finally brings greater freedom and reduced financial insecurity to ordinary citizens.

Backers describe UBI as “rent on our data and labour history”, a way to share the value extracted from decades of human work now used to train AI and automation systems.

Critics frame it in far harsher terms. Conservative MP Diane Clegg labelled it “a bribe for idleness” and cautioned against “the death of hard work as a social norm”. Business groups say firms would shift automation overseas to avoid the tax, resulting in fewer domestic jobs and weaker economic growth.

Concerns about a declining work ethic

The backlash is driven by more than financial concerns; it also centres on identity. For many people, employment is strongly connected to dignity, structure and a sense of purpose.

“If the government pays everyone to sit at home, what message does that send?” one factory owner asked at a town hall in Indiana. “Who will still get up at 5am to open the shop?”

Hartman disputes the suggestion that people would simply give up striving. He cites smaller UBI pilots in which most participants remained in work, although some changed jobs or reduced their hours slightly to study, look after relatives or launch side businesses.

Evidence from real-world universal basic income trials

Economists point out that this proposal is not entirely unprecedented. Over the past decade, a number of countries have trialled forms of unconditional cash support.

• Finland conducted a two-year experiment in which unemployed people received a basic payment; participants reported lower stress and greater trust in institutions.
• Canada’s Dauphin trial during the 1970s recorded increased school completion and fewer hospital admissions when families received a basic income.
• In the US, the Alaska Permanent Fund has provided residents with annual dividends from oil revenues since the 1980s, without causing work participation to collapse.

However, none of these cases reflects the size or permanence of a national UBI paid to every adult. Its possible effects on pay, housing costs and supermarket prices are still disputed.

Studies suggest modest UBI schemes do not erase work incentives, but large, permanent versions could reshape labour markets in unpredictable ways.

Winners, losers and automation politics

Beneath the philosophical debate is a highly practical issue: who benefits, and who foots the bill? Hartman’s blueprint would place the largest burden on highly automated corporations in logistics, retail, finance and manufacturing.

Smaller businesses that use little automation would pay less. Yet their proprietors say they would still be caught between UBI-driven wage pressures and increased tax costs, without the productivity gains that sophisticated technology can offer.

Trade unions are divided as well. Some regard UBI as a safety net that would improve members’ bargaining strength, allowing them to leave poor jobs without being pushed into destitution. Others fear businesses would invoke the payment scheme to defend weaker contracts and reductions in overtime and benefits.

What exactly qualifies as a “robot”?

Defining the term is among the plan’s most practical difficulties. Hartman uses “robot” as a catch-all for systems, including software and AI, that automate duties previously carried out by people.

A tax could therefore apply if a bank replaced call-centre staff with chatbots or a supermarket added more self-service checkouts. Measuring such changes would depend on companies recording which posts were automated, rather than merely left unfilled.

Tax lawyers are already identifying potential loopholes. Companies could reclassify jobs, outsource work abroad or move to temporary contracts to avoid an “automation-driven redundancy” designation. Clear legislation and robust enforcement would be necessary to prevent the policy from coming apart.

How the change might affect a typical household

Take a couple in their thirties with one child who currently earn roughly £36,000 annually between them. Under Hartman’s approach, both adults would receive UBI, increasing their yearly pre-tax income by £21,600.

Should one partner lose a retail role because of automation, the family would retain a dependable income floor. That security could give the redundant worker time to retrain for another profession rather than accept the first low-paid job available.

Critics say landlords and lenders would soon respond. A larger guaranteed income might raise rents, childcare charges and house prices, putting households back in the same position despite more money circulating through the economy.

Key terms appearing throughout the debate

Three ideas underpin the present discussion:

• Universal basic income: A recurring payment made to every person, without conditions or means testing.
• Robot tax: A group of levies designed to capture some of the extra profit businesses make when automation replaces employees.
• Labour participation rate: The proportion of working-age people who are in employment or actively looking for it; it is a key indicator of how many people remain involved in the labour market.

People concerned about a “death of hard work” expect the participation rate to fall as individuals choose to opt out. Economists in favour of UBI argue that a move away from severely low-paid, exploitative work towards education or caring duties could be socially beneficial, even if the headline participation figure declines.

Long-term risks and potential consequences

Even proponents acknowledge the dangers. If badly structured, a robot tax might encourage companies to move elsewhere or reduce investment, slowing innovation. In turn, there would be fewer productivity improvements to distribute.

There is a further political danger: once people become accustomed to guaranteed payments, an economic crisis that interrupts the funding could create serious unrest. The arrangement would make social stability more dependent on state capacity and tax collection.

Yet failing to tax automation creates risks of its own. Without fresh revenue sources, governments could confront higher unemployment, a diminishing wage-tax base and mounting pressure on existing welfare budgets.

The country now faces a core choice: treat automation as a private jackpot for early adopters, or as shared infrastructure that must pay rent to society.

Hartman’s scheme brings that issue into public view. Whether or not it is enacted, the debate over robot taxes and universal basic income is unlikely to disappear, because the machines it concerns will remain.