Should artificial intelligence cause mass unemployment, workers will not be thrilled(非常兴奋、激动). But neither will the taxman(税务人员、税务部门), even if he hasn’t been automated. For most of the past century, rich countries have had simple rules for sharing prosperity: raise money mostly by taxing work and consumption, sprinkle in(少量添加、夹杂) some borrowing and hand out the proceeds(收益、收入). That model may collapse(崩溃、瓦解) if AI advances as quickly as its boosters(支持者、推崇者) suggest. Hence, many say, a new approach is needed, in which government makes its money primarily from the new technology.
如果人工智能导致大规模失业，工人们可不会高兴。但税务官员也不会高兴，即便他本人尚未被自动化取代。在过去的大多数世纪里，富裕国家一直遵循简单的分享繁荣规则：主要通过向劳动和消费征税来筹集资金，辅以一些借贷，然后分配收益。如果AI像其推崇者所说的那样快速发展，这种模式可能会崩溃。因此，许多人认为，需要一种新方法，让政府主要从新技术中获取收入。
Exactly how God-like AI(神级AI、超级AI) would hit employment is widely debated. It might be that human workers would simply reshuffle(重新安排、重组) and do things that AI cannot, in a much wealthier economy. After a painful adjustment, in this scenario, most people would still have good jobs. But you can also imagine a trickier(更棘手的、更复杂的) outcome in which AI diverts(转移、使转向) to capital holders income that currently flows to workers. That would be a huge upheaval(剧变、动荡). Throughout modern history, the ratio between labour and capital has been a remarkably stable two-to-one, noted Nicholas Kaldor(① 尼古拉斯·卡尔多（1908-1986...), an economist at Cambridge University, in the 1960s. America’s labour share has since fallen on some measures, but Kaldor’s observation has mostly held up.
关于神级AI究竟会如何冲击就业，人们争论不休。一种可能是，在更富裕的经济体中，人类工人只需重新调整，去做AI无法完成的事情。经过痛苦的调整后，在这种情景下，大多数人仍将拥有好工作。但你也可以想象一种更棘手的后果：AI将目前流向工人的收入转移到资本持有者手中。那将是一场巨大的剧变。剑桥大学经济学家尼古拉斯·卡尔多在1960年代指出，在整个现代史上，劳动与资本的比例一直惊人地稳定在2:1。此后，美国的劳动份额在某些指标上有所下降，但卡尔多的观察大体上仍然成立。
If the pattern broke, governments would still need money—probably much more, if swathes of(大片、大批) the population were jobless and needy. Whether states supported them with cash handouts(施舍物、救济品), job training or something more imaginative, the funding would need to come from somewhere. But if the labour-share of income was low, the tax base would have collapsed. The average member of the OECD(① OECD（Organisation ...), a club of mostly rich countries, raises about half of its tax revenue from labour. Another 30% comes from consumption taxes, and the rest from a smattering of levies on corporations, capital and property. America, which lacks a national consumption tax, is especially reliant(依赖的、依靠的) on labour.
如果这一格局被打破，政府仍将需要资金——如果大批人口失业且贫困，所需资金可能更多。无论国家是以现金发放、职业培训还是更具想象力的方式提供支持，资金都必须有来源。但如果劳动收入份额降低，税基就会崩溃。经合组织（主要由富裕国家组成）的成员国平均约一半的税收来自劳动收入。另有30%来自消费税，其余来自对公司、资本和财产征收的少量税费。美国缺乏全国性消费税，因此尤其依赖劳动税收。
Capitalism in the 22nd century
22世纪的资本主义