Originally Posted by thommy

why not 90% ???

you have to imagine that a robot does not need money.
the "boss" of such a company should not make more on a robot as on a human.

a worker is actually not only a worker - he is mainly a consumer because without consumers you do not need producers and without producers you do not need workers
and the worker works to be able to be a consumer.

it have to go in this direction and there is still a reason that people open a company, produce something, market it in a smart way and make more at the end of the month as someone that does not go to work.

do you think the owner of a big company makes 10% from the paycheck of all his workers? I think he does not even make 3% - so this 90% tax would not really hurt him because it is used to give HIS CUSTOMERS the money to buy the products.

what most of you see completely wrong is that money can be wasted. but in fact in can not be wasted. not even food stamps are wasted money for the society because they bring someone revenue - and this someone pays people from this revenue - and this people are also consuming from this money and make someone else revenue.

the money circle lives from balance - it can´t go only in one direction - it must be giving and taking otherwise the circle stops.
if we talk here about human you will always have a winner and a loser. but if we are talking about machines that are made to be losers the situation is a completely other.