I'm guess if I'm making obvious errors in logic, someone will point them out.
That said, do you agree the article was written by AI? Try to read it again. It reads like a markov chain of ideas loosely chained together.
"With digitalisation, increasingly precise data is recorded about almost all activities. In other words, our activities are registered and measured in more and more detail. In principle, this opens an entirely new opportunity to tax, for example, work performances and collect payments for the use of different commodities such as roads. Thanks to digitalisation, all exchanges in society can be made transparent and taxed fairly in real time. "
Basic income as the smokescreen for an invasive state panopticon that uses taxes to monitor and control personal behavior will be the result, more or less.
Excerpt: "The state will have difficulties in replacing the huge reductions in income tax returns with other forms of taxation. But there are also other things that the nation state can continue to tax in the future. For example, property consumption and different steering taxes aimed at changing people’s behaviour, are possible new avenues of income. There are considerable opportunities in steering taxes, as the data available and ideological resistance against absolute bans increase their importance. The heightened discussion in recent years about the expansion of tax co-operation between nations could also lead to actions that strengthens the tax base in the future global and digitalised economy."
I think we've all been duped into upvoting a completely AI-generated article based on a catchy title and a bunch of positive fluff thrown in.