Sanders Plan Takes Half of Big AI to Pay Americans 1000 Dollars a Year
Bernie Sanders has introduced a sweeping proposal to tax major AI companies with a one-time 50 percent levy on their stock, creating a sovereign wealth fund worth an estimated 7 trillion dollars. The fund would distribute annual dividends to Americans and support public programs such as healthcare, education and housing. A new Independent Commission for Democratic AI would gain voting power in AI firms, allowing it to block corporate decisions that could harm the public. AI leaders like Sam Altman reportedly disagree with Sanders on how much public ownership is appropriate, and industry resistance is expected. With a Republican-controlled Congress and skepticism from Donald Trump’s administration, the legislation faces steep political hurdles. Sanders frames the proposal as a starting point for ensuring that AI benefits society rather than concentrating power among a few corporations.
Editor's Note: Senator Bernie Sanders’ proposal to create a 7 trillion dollar public fund by taxing 50 percent of the shares of major AI companies may sound like a straightforward way to address inequality. Promising annual payments to citizens and more funding for public services naturally attracts attention. But in the context of the global economy and today’s technological rivalry, the plan has serious weaknesses that make it risky both economically and geopolitically.
The first weakness is structural. The idea is essentially a form of nationalization. History shows that governments are not good owners of companies operating in fast-moving, high-tech industries. The state’s role is to act as a neutral regulator, not to manage the very firms it oversees. Putting a politically appointed commission inside corporate boards will not make AI more ethical. It will slow down decisions, add bureaucracy and weaken innovation.
The second weakness is global. These AI companies are based in the United States, but they earn revenue from customers around the world. If Washington takes 50 percent of their value to pay dividends only to Americans, it will trigger a digital trade conflict. The European Union and other regions will respond with new taxes and restrictions to protect their markets, which will fragment the global tech ecosystem and create long-term instability.
The third weakness is strategic. The real winner from such a move would not be the American public but China. The current US lead in AI depends on the speed and scale of private investment, which allows companies to pour billions into research and data centers within weeks. A law that drains capital from these firms and places key decisions in the hands of political appointees will slow them down and weaken investor confidence. Few investors will commit serious money to an industry where long-term planning depends not on market forces and professional management, but on political agendas and populist pressure.
China is already positioned to take advantage of this. It is strategically releasing free models and extremely cheap commercial LLMs to reduce the pace of development and discourage new investment in American AI companies. Many of these systems rely on knowledge distilled from US models, allowing Chinese firms to compete aggressively without carrying the same research costs. If US companies are forced to operate with less capital, more bureaucracy and slower decision cycles, China will gain a significant advantage in the global AI race. In this sense, Sanders’ proposal would be a gift to both the Chinese state and Chinese AI businesses.
At a moment when the global AI race is accelerating, draining capital from your own industry and forcing it to seek approval from government officials is a strategic mistake. Sanders’ plan is a clear example of domestic populism that ignores how the global tech economy works. In trying to help ordinary people, it risks weakening the long-term technological position of the West.
Read the full story on Ars Technica →