AI replacing workers gives government less tax revenue

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the U.S. government would receive most of the revenue to provide services to the American people via the revenue received from personal income taxes. It also is how we fund Social Security, Medicare and unemployment compensation as "workers pay into" those systems to derive their benefits, respectfully, from these government systems when eligible. My question: What happens when we have a dramatic decrease in monies going into those funds as well as into the federal coffers? Well, it would mean we would have to make major adjustments in the scope of many programs, if not totally eliminate them because we would not have the revenue. Even, deficit spending would not work as we would not be able to show those entities lending the U.S. government funds that we could pay it back. Heck, we would struggle to make the monthly service on our $39 trillion national debt. And, forget about the elderly — there would not be enough money in the Social Security trust fund or Medicare (health insurance for the elderly). We are on track to vastly improve the profit margins for the Fortune 1000 companies but totally bankrupt the citizens of America and the entire U.S. government. With the workforce participation rate at historical lows (excluding the COVID-19 period), the worst in at least 20 years, our annual budget deficits have continued to grow. Thus, if companies like Facebook fire 8,000 workers and other like-minded companies do large layoffs, there would be considerably fewer tax dollars going to the federal coffers in "income tax revenue" — no need for payroll taxes or payments into Social Security or Medicare. Meaning they would all eventually fail. We would have accomplished the dubious distinction of economically imploding America. And in the spirit of the French Queen, Marie Antoinette, who said to her starving citizens, "Let them eat cake" during the French Revolution, Trump says, "Let's build a beautiful billion-dollar ballroom so folks can eat fancy dinners, drink expensive wines and dance the night away. Trump seems clueless, preferring instead a laissez-faire style of governing on this issue. All this would occur while the Facebooks of the world would rake in huge profits for their shareholders. And, yes, the board of directors in America are "only" looking out for "their" shareholders — their fiduciary obligations. How it affects the U.S. or the world? Oh well. Not their "responsibility." Thus, we need leadership on an issue that is rapidly approaching America and other industrialized capitalistic systems. This may sound draconian, but we would truly not have many options if we intentionally decrease the all-important workforce participation rate that is already taking a beating. History would show tax increases are highly unpopular. In fact, they can prove lethal to a political career. President GHW Bush promised to not raise taxes and he did. He lost reelection. President Bill Clinton gave America a huge tax increase; the following year the Democrats lost the House and Senate to the Republicans for the first time in 40 years. Yet, history would show both did the right thing despite the backlash. In the 21st century, Congress and presidents of both political parties have run budget deficits causing us to borrow money to pay our bills and obligations as they have refused large tax increases on the public. Population increases have helped with providing more tax revenue, however. In 1990 the U.S. population was 250 million and today we are 40% larger approaching 350 million. This fact means more tax revenue simply because we have more people paying taxes and paying into the trust funds (Social Security and Medicare). Here is the problem. If we maintain or only have modest growth in our population, but have a dramatic decrease in the workforce, the government would still be expected to provide the same services with substantially fewer workers paying taxes to support them. Not a good scenario. Alert: We cannot tax folks who are not working, and working Americans are already overtaxed — thus, they are exempt. So, what is left. We must look at the corporations. The business tax is the other major producer of federal revenue. Corporations utilizing AI while reducing their workforce will gain huge profits/net income due to not having to offer a salary or benefits to humans. Thosecompanies must share those much larger profits in a meaningful way with their "Uncle Sam" — the federal government. Let us look at the person making a "modest" $100,000. That person would be able to keep society flowing via paying household expenses and related expenses. Then the other (let's say) $30,000 is usually taken from their gross income to pay their federal obligations, i.e. personal income tax, Medicare, Social Security, unemployment trust. That $30,000 would be the federal government's "missing" revenue. (States with personal income taxes would also lose revenue — a topic for another day). The companies will obviously get away with not paying the workers a salary or benefits, but the companies should still have to pay Uncle Sam as if they had an employee, as AI is now the "employee." Seems fair to me. And how does ithurt the large corporation? After all, they are still realizing a $70,000 saving, plus the cost of benefits. Let us not forget the warning cries from world figures like Elon Musk, Bill Gates and even Pope Leo per the dangers of AI from numerous perspectives. My idea is just something to think about. But that seems to be more than most folks are doing today. It is too late when the ship actually hits the "iceberg" — if you could, ask the folks who were on the Titanic.