The proposition
Worker-owned augmentation blurs the labor/capital boundary.
Salary, employer productivity gain, + operating cost and augmentation-supported productive value may coexist inside one employment relationship. Tax systems usually prefer cleaner categories.
Why classification matters
Bad tax design could decide ownership indirectly.
If personal augmentation is taxed or regulated far more awkwardly than employer-owned AI, the law could push the market toward employer ownership even if worker ownership produces better human incentives.
The constraint
Do not turn a simple employment model into a financial engineering scheme.
Human Capital .+ should not need elaborate asset vehicles just to make Time+ work. The better direction is transparent accounting that remains understandable to workers, employers and tax authorities.
What remains uncertain
Where this argument can still fail.
What would change our thinking
The point is not to defend the Perspective forever.
If tax treatment makes worker ownership structurally impractical, the Core ownership architecture may need to distinguish legal ownership from economic rights more carefully.