One mention of robot-centered job automation is enough to send shivers up the spine of most workers who depend on these jobs for their livelihood. Many see the changes happening right before their eyes—automated supermarket checkouts, self-driving cars and touchscreen restaurant ordering is eliminating many jobs. While this is bad for workers, it’s great for manufacturers and large scale businesses who save substantially on the cost of labor.

One San Francisco politician has proposed the notion that these companies should have to pay for the privilege of their vast cost savings. She wants to tax robots. What at once seemed extreme is now becoming more attractive to workers, especially those hard hit by the new robot economy. A proposed Universal Basic Income, or UBI, would serve as a base salary that would allow everyone to enjoy a living wage. Now many want to tax the robots—a move that would stop companies from dumping their entire workforce and replacing them with artificial intelligence. San Francisco Supervisor Jane Kim thinks that a tax on robots would allay a lot of the fears of the knowledge industry workers in Silicon Valley who fear that a robotic takeover would mean financial ruin for them. Bill Gates agrees, theorizing that a tax on robots would serve to slow down the inevitable robot labor force takeover, while providing much needed revenue for those in human centered careers like child care and nursing.

This sentiment is a bit surprising coming from someone like Gates, since Microsoft is one of the major manufacturers of artificial intelligence systems. Gates is not alone in his thinking. Kim says that her idea to impose a tax on robots stemmed from a fear that job automation would create a chasm between the have and the have-nots. Those who had been previously dependent on unskilled labor and lower wage pink collar jobs would find themselves impoverished and without a way to earn a living. Kim is developing an advisory committee to brainstorm about ways to make the best use of the proposed automation tax.

Her committee will include the most influential leaders in academia, healthcare, unions and the tech community. She hopes to raise awareness of how the expansion of robots in the workplace would have a ripple effect across industries, from trucking to finance, hospitality and healthcare. While the plan would not stop the inevitable switch to robot labor, a system that taxes robots would help to slow the job displacement and allow employees to make smooth transitions.

One of the major objections raised to the idea is that it can be hard to define what constitutes “harmful” automation. While a robot may cost one worker part of a job, it could also free that worker up to engage in more productive activity, bringing with it financial value. While Kim does not think that her automation tax idea would be a panacea, she does believe it is a step in the right direction for San Francisco, and the entire country. She hopes that San Francisco can lead the charge, and be a model for other cities to follow.