Elon Musk has offered a dazzling prediction: within a decade, artificial intelligence and robots could make goods and services so abundant that money loses much of its purpose. Bernie Sanders answered with an immediate question. If the world’s richest person expects money to become irrelevant by 2036, why not surrender a small share of extreme wealth now to improve life for millions of Americans?
Sanders wrote that Musk should support a 5 percent tax on his wealth and that of other billionaires to ensure all Americans have “a decent standard of living.” He added, “The fact that he doesn’t tells you everything you need to know.” The challenge echoed legislation Sanders introduced with Rep. Ro Khanna in March 2026.
Musk’s Vision Begins With Robots and Abundance
Musk made the “money won’t matter in 2036” prediction during an interview with The Economist. His argument rests on scarcity. People need money because food, housing, transportation, medical care, and other necessities remain limited. Musk suggested that advanced AI and robotics could eventually produce more goods and services than people could consume, weakening the role of currency.
When asked how people would survive if automation displaced workers, Musk proposed direct government payments. He said the Treasury could issue checks and argued that soaring production might create deflation instead of inflation. His forecast remains speculative. Technology alone cannot determine who owns production, receives income, or gains access to essential services.
Sanders Turns a Future Promise Into a Present Tax Test
Sanders’ Make Billionaires Pay Their Fair Share Act would impose an annual 5 percent tax on Americans worth at least $1 billion. According to his office, it would cover 938 billionaires with combined wealth of about $8.2 trillion. University of California, Berkeley economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman estimated that the proposal could raise roughly $4.4 trillion over ten years.
The bill would use the money for household payments, affordable housing, childcare, teacher salaries, health coverage and home-based care. Its sponsors propose $3,000 payments for each person in qualifying households, millions of additional affordable homes and a childcare-cost ceiling tied to family income. Sanders’ office estimated that Musk, valued at about $833 billion when the legislation was announced, would owe roughly $42 billion in the first year and retain about $792 billion. Those estimates come from the sponsors and their consulting economists, not an official Congressional Budget Office score.
A wealth tax is more complicated than multiplying an online net-worth estimate by 5 percent. Billionaire fortunes often consist of company shares, private businesses and other assets whose prices change sharply. Musk’s fortune can swing by billions as investors reassess Tesla, SpaceX and related holdings. Any tax would need rules for valuation, trusts, debt, losses, payment timing and assets that cannot easily be sold.
A Powerful Political Point, but Not the Final Answer
Sanders’ criticism lands because it exposes the gap between futuristic promises and the financial pressure households face now. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the average U.S. consumer unit spent $78,535 in 2024, including major costs such as housing, transportation, food and health care. The Federal Reserve also tracks a persistent divide between wealth held at the top and wealth owned by the bottom half of households.
Still, rejecting a wealth tax does not automatically prove Musk believes money will remain important forever. Musk described a hypothetical future, while Sanders demanded a policy choice under current conditions. Musk could argue that an annual levy would force founders to sell shares or reduce investment. Sanders would answer that fortunes at this scale already create enormous economic and political power, even before owners sell their assets.
Independent researchers find serious arguments on both sides. The Tax Policy Center says a wealth tax could raise substantial revenue and reduce inequality, but it also warns about difficult valuations, avoidance, possible investment effects and unresolved constitutional questions. Those obstacles do not make the idea impossible, but they would require strict enforcement and careful design.
The exchange ultimately raises a larger question: if AI creates extraordinary abundance, who will own the machines and receive the benefits? Musk imagines production becoming so plentiful that money fades. Sanders fears that technology may succeed while its rewards remain concentrated among a few owners. His 5 percent challenge forces Musk to explain how the promised future would reach ordinary people.
For now, money still determines whether families can afford rent, groceries, health care and childcare. Musk has supplied a bold prediction about 2036. Sanders has supplied a political test for 2026: share some of the wealth now, or persuade Americans that tomorrow’s abundance will not become another fortune controlled from the top.
