Truck drivers and cabbies should be taxed more than regular commuters?

But at the same time, the people will be losing a major part of their savings, and this will have an impact on the long term. Only the bankers will get rich from the currency devaluation.

Here's how to solve the problem of potential backlash against robots:
Provide each worker displaced with a "golden parachute" that will provide for him for the rest of his life. That's what CEO's get when they become obsolete .

solution: cut taxes and gov spending
for people to lazy to work thinking they can just steal it or do other criminal things, there's a death penalty for that  

Robots and automated systems have the potential to be near-ubiquitous in 2045, capable of carrying out extremely complex tasks with no human involvement. Potentially, machines could: carry out all manufacturing and agricultural tasks; repair themselves; as well as clean, cook and tidy. Advances in artificial intelligences could make machines so life-like that they are able to answer phones in call-centres, take care of children and even teach. Computers could potentially diagnose and treat almost every medical condition. If progress on this scale is made in the future, it is possible that there would be very few jobs still carried out by human beings, who could, in practice, be almost totally excluded from the workforce.

In richer countries, this large-scale automation of work would be likely to have a mostly positive effect, as governments would probably be able to provide their citizens with all the material comforts they need.  However, many people may initially struggle to achieve a sense of purpose and social status without work, with possible rises in cases of depression. Education systems may need to be totally redesigned to enable people to self-motivate and to gain satisfaction from activities other than work. Over time, when populations had become more used to a life without work, they may fill their time playing sport, painting, reading and composing music.

In poorer countries, however, large-scale automation of work could stall economic development, perhaps even reversing it. For example, foreign companies would be far less likely to employ cheap labour, as machines would be so much more cost-effective and efficient.  Some employment could initially remain, as poorer countries would be less likely to afford to use machines to carry out roles in their internal labour markets. Eventually, though, automated equipment would probably become cheap enough for even these countries to afford. Poorer governments may not be able to provide more than an extremely basic level of subsistence, meaning that people would have no way to improve their living conditions. This could lead them to become deeply frustrated and angry. Nevertheless, citizens would still receive some benefits from large-scale automation, such as charity-funded machines capable of providing very cheap diagnosis and treating disease. Mass protests and civil unrest could still develop, with ‘anti-robot’ movements becoming increasingly powerful.

AI will always have a cost, if it does not, then we don't care about having a job because everybody will be taken cared by robots.

Fair enough, *if*  LF is proven wrong, we should have some idea of what to do. However, the Op's ideas both come from a far-far-left perspective that would require that almost all individual liberties be given up. I can't support that. If large scale unemployment were to become a huge problem that cannot be addressed, I suspect we could find better solutions, although I admit I can't think of many right now.

But with so high tax, companies will be reluctant to stay in the country and move the operation to other countries. Usually enterprises get the most income, they have many legal ways to avoid the tax. So the welfare condition purely depends on the income of the employees, which is constantly being outsourced to low cost countries

So while unemployment (number of people with zero income) is slowly increasing and demand is falling, the factory could just scale down its operations accordingly, and in theory could exist even with 90% unemployment.

it doesn't matter how many businesses accept bitcoin, if all of them are pegging their bitcoin prices to the exchange price. it doesn't really count as helping the BTC economy unless they offer their goods/services directly for a specific amount of BTC itself, and not just the $ equivalent amount of BTC.