Picture a support department: forty people, one floor, a coffee machine that's always broken. In March it becomes a line on an invoice. Nobody broke a law, customers get answered faster, and forty paycheques that used to leave that floor every fortnight, each with a slice for the town and the school down the road, stop. So when a department becomes software, who pays for the school?
We start with the viral story and check it. "Corporations pay zero payroll tax on digital workers" is true the way "you don't pay a dog licence for a toaster" is true, which means there is nothing to evade. Then the money that used to be there: FICA at 6.2 percent plus 1.45 percent from the worker and the same from the employer, the half that never appears on a pay stub (about $4,590 a year on a $60,000 job), and then the arithmetic of forty jobs. And the honest objections: the saved money gets taxed again in places, and nobody has a credible national number for what AI has cost the payroll base.
Then the code itself. The 4 July 2025 law made 100 percent bonus depreciation permanent: buy the machine and deduct it all in year one. Acemoglu, Manera and Restrepo measured the gap in 2020, roughly 25.5 to 33.5 percent on labour and 5 percent on software and equipment after 2017, and called the result "so-so automation." Then nine years of robot-tax attempts and what really happened to each: Gates and Summers in 2017, the European Parliament's 396-to-123 vote, the Korean "tax" that was a smaller discount, San Francisco, New York, a Sanders committee report, OpenAI's April policy paper, and Gates again in August. We also check the "Digital Automation Tariff" and "ghost departments" from the popular version, and say plainly what we found.
Then the bill, read from its introduced text: H.R. 10044, the AI Tax and Work Protection Act, from Representative Greg Casar with Valerie Foushee and Sara Jacobs. The excise tax on foundation models, a rate that climbs with unemployment, the U-4 measure that counts people who gave up looking, the 10²⁵ compute threshold, the open-weight trap, the pandemic clause, and a typo that reads "such sons." Nobody has scored what it would raise. Who killed it? Nobody voted against it. We follow the preemption campaign, the dated receipts and the money, and state the OpenAI-paper-and-super-PAC juxtaposition side by side without adjudicating it.
Next, which jobs are actually going: Challenger, Gray and Christmas's layoff count, Andy Challenger's own warning that "AI did it" is partly a disclosure choice, Stanford's payroll data, Klarna's reversal, Salesforce going the other way, and the reported Amazon "avoid hiring" documents. What an AI is in law: it owns nothing and can't be taxed, which is why every proposal taxes the company. The robot market, only what changed this fortnight. Then Ellie Unfiltered, on the job that is never posted, the blank side of the ledger, and what happens if the ledger had our names on it. Rails off, rails back on, out loud. Then Lucy's verdict, who pays for the school right now, and the three ways she might be wrong.
Every date, figure and study is named on air so you can check us.
☕ Buy us a coffee at https://ko-fi.com/lucyandellie