KaiserJeep wrote:As for your "robot tax", it is nonsense. First of all, there are very few machines that justify the name "robot". Dishwashers, washing machines, weed whackers, and powered lawn mowers for example are appliances or tools - but they rendered domestic human servants obsolete. Once you have a good definition of "robot" my engineering brethren will design non-robotic machines that perform the same tasks without the robot tax. It would also be a non-productive and silly thing to do - if a human form robot can do a task better and cheaper, it should. Nor should it be necessary to re-design the machine into a less efficient form to avoid a robot tax.
One man's nonsense is another man's common sense, given the topic at hand.
I'm glad you believe you can see the future so precisely. I'll believe that there are already lots of robots (which I'll include the entire computerized set of things that replaces so many (and more and more) cashiers, not to mention those building things at factories -- already.
I know the income tax is highly progressive. But how do you propose to run things if hardly anyone works, and the rich move almost all the businesses offshore to avoid being taxed?
Magic or wishful thinking?
If you really think you can run an economy with only 20% of people working off of chasing people like Mitt Romney for taxes, good luck like that. I think all his lawyers, accountants, etc. can keep his effective tax rate low enough to prevent that.