Strong economic data is fueling optimism about AI-driven growth, but it's also triggering a fascinating debate: What happens when robots do all the work, and who gets rich from it?

The Growth Debate Kicks Off

The Bureau of Economic Analysis reported that U.S. gross domestic product expanded at a 4.3% annualized rate from July to September, and venture capitalist Marc Andreessen celebrated by posting "It's time to grow" on X. That simple statement launched a broader conversation about artificial intelligence and economic acceleration.

Musk's Wild Growth Predictions

Tesla Inc. (TSLA) CEO Elon Musk wasn't content with celebrating 4.3% growth. He responded with a far bolder forecast: double-digit economic growth could arrive within 12 to 18 months.

Then he went further. "If applied intelligence is proxy for economic growth, which it should be, triple-digit is possible in ~5 years," Musk wrote on X.

Triple-digit growth. That's not a typo.

Cuban Asks the Uncomfortable Question

Mark Cuban didn't dispute that AI could drive massive productivity gains. Instead, he asked a different question: "How concentrated do you think the wealth generation will be?"

It's the kind of question that makes people squirm because the answer is probably "very concentrated." Cuban's concern isn't just about fairness in some abstract sense—it's about what happens to society when wealth accumulation accelerates faster than policymakers can respond.

He warned that if we wait until hyper-growth actually arrives, it'll be too late to implement effective policies.

Enter the Robot Tax

The conversation took a concrete turn when Tomasz Wojewoda, former Binance Chain growth director, suggested that "tax the rich" might need to evolve into "tax the AI." The logic is straightforward: if machines are replacing human labor, maybe those machines should carry more of the tax burden.

Cuban agreed enthusiastically. He thinks discussions around robot taxes need to start immediately, not in some distant future when AI has already reshaped the economy.

"I like a straight amount per hour of use, per robot or cobot," Cuban said, emphasizing that the specific form of the technology shouldn't matter. The principle is simple: tax the productive capacity of AI systems based on how much they're used.

Competitiveness Versus Stability

The obvious pushback to robot taxes is that they could hurt America's competitiveness globally. Why handicap U.S. companies with taxes that other countries might not impose?

Cuban has a response: unchecked inequality is a bigger threat than falling behind in some international race. "Every country will face the prospect of national instability if the economics get out of [whack]," he argued. In his view, social instability is far more costly than any competitive disadvantage from taxing AI-driven productivity.

It's a pragmatic take. Economic growth is great, but not if it tears society apart in the process.