Tax on AI Revenue? Prien Backs the Coalition’s Proposal

TVS News AI, editorially supervised, presents Tax on AI Revenue? Prien Backs the Coalition’s Proposal.

At 10:12 p.m. on October 29, 2026, Tagesschau reported that a debate previously conducted mainly on technical and economic grounds had suddenly taken on a clear political demand: Revenue generated through artificial intelligence could be taxed in Germany. Family Minister Karin Prien is in favor. The specifics emerge where she explains her proposal.

Prien Links the AI Tax to the World of Work

Prien does not argue that every form of AI revenue should be taxed. Her wording contains an important condition: If value creation works essentially through AI, it must also be taxed — “otherwise, it cannot go on like this.”

Her focus is therefore primarily on the consequences for workers. There needs to be a discussion of “what artificial intelligence and the changing world of work mean for young people and their careers,” Prien said. For you, that means the issue is not primarily about generating the highest possible additional revenue for the state. The question is how the state should handle the employment risks that AI can create.

The federal family minister’s support also changes the proposal’s significance within the coalition. What began as a technical discussion about the use of AI has become a fiscal policy proposal that must also address revenue and how it would be used.

Wildberger Wants to Finance the Transition with AI Revenue

Federal Digital Minister Karsten Wildberger had already raised the idea earlier. He justified his demand with the extremely high revenue generated by the technology and told Der Tagesspiegel: “We have to tax the extremely high revenue generated with this technology, and we can use the money to finance the transition.”

Wildberger thus identifies a specific use for the funds: The additional money is intended to finance the transition in the world of work. He, too, is considering expected job losses and fundamental upheaval. Unlike Prien, however, his reasoning immediately cites the technology’s economic success as the reason for taxation.

Use AI First, Then Discuss Taxes

Wildberger later pulled back somewhat at RTL/ntv. Germany should first seize the technology’s economic opportunities: “Let’s let the growth come first.”

CDU Economics Minister Katherina Reiche made a similar statement at an event hosted by the newspaper Die Welt: “Let’s introduce AI first before we tax it.” Once something is working, taxes can also be discussed.

This is the strongest argument against Prien’s support: A tax can be pursued with the goal of generating revenue for the transition. But economic development can also take priority before deciding on an additional burden. Both positions refer to the world of work. One wants to finance the transition, while the other wants to harness technological development first.

Merz Is Critical, While the SPD Signals Openness

Federal Chancellor and CDU party leader Friedrich Merz has so far taken a largely critical view of taxing AI. The position of the coalition partner sounds different: The SPD’s Bundestag parliamentary group had already stated in a resolution in September that technological progress must not make people poor.

The SPD justifies this with the experience that machines have so far taken over well-paid tasks, leaving only low-paid jobs for workers. It therefore wants to campaign for wage agreements and “fair taxation of the profiteers.” Fair taxation of profits generated by AI is thus documented as a goal of the SPD parliamentary group; by contrast, the report provides no specific plans for the government coalition’s AI revenue tax.

Bill Gates Brings the Debate from the US to Germany

Support for taxing AI and robots is also coming from the United States. Microsoft founder Bill Gates has been advocating this for some time. His reasoning centers on the incentive to replace people with machines. At the same time, he fears that AI could lead to massive job losses.

Gates’ argument therefore aligns with the concern also placed at the center of Prien and Wildberger’s arguments. The difference lies in political proximity: Gates is raising the debate internationally, while Prien is bringing it into the German coalition from the perspective of families and the world of work.

Prien’s Support Is a Signal, Not Yet a Tax System

For workers, the unresolved labor market issue is the most important connection. Young people are increasingly having difficulty finding entry-level jobs, according to the reporting. Prien’s proposal is intended to help ensure that this transition is addressed politically. Based on the available information, it cannot be established whether a tax would actually preserve or secure jobs.

The scope of the proposal is also still unclear for companies with AI revenue. The report gives no specific information on the tax rate, affected companies, tax allowance, start date or use of the revenue. Nor has the coalition agreed on a joint implementation.

The political direction, however, is clear: Prien supports taxation, Wildberger demands tax revenue for the transition, Reiche wants growth and the introduction of AI first, and Merz remains critical. The debate is therefore no longer only about whether AI should be regulated by the state. It is about whether and when value created by AI should be taxed — and who should bear the financial consequences of the labor market transition.