Jesus, focus. This ISN'T a "social or political system". It's an economic one.
How to actually build such systems I don't really know.
FOCUS. The proposal is to charge people for their software according to their ability to pay. Specifically charging nations with less GDP a lower rate.
And that might seem like a great idea. But people would take advantage of it. You can look at nearly any other post in this thread for examples, but we've got:
A) People will buy the software in el-cheapo land and bring it to the rich nation.
B) It requires nightmare dystopian levels of DRM to enforce.
C) It won't necessarily stop piracy.
D) It's not necessarily more fair.
E) GDP is a really rough-cut metric.
Because of those problems, it's a bad idea and we shouldn't do it. How about, instead of selling things cheaper to poor people, we tax rich people at a larger rate than poor people? That seems easier to control and manage. As for international inequality, let them freaking pirate it until they make enough money to be worth sueing. You can't sue poor people, they don't have anything to take. Get over it.
Some fundamental shifts in the way we divide up our society's immense riches between its members in light of the impact of automation, AI, and other advances seems likely to be necessary.
The proposal is how we divide up the costs, not the riches, but sure, close enough. Automation, AI, and advances are kinda moot in the discussion. There's plenty of inequality already and the issue is here and now not some far-off impending impact of future tech.
Yeah yeah, you're gearing up for the UBI rant. We get it.