> Where would governments find the money to expand safety nets by 2-3 orders of magnitude, while losing most income tax inflows?

Well, it would start by not tax-favoring the (capital) income that remains and would have to have grown massively relatively to the overall economy for that to have occurred.

(In fact, it could start by doing that now, and the resulting tax burden shift would reduce the artificial tax incentive to shift from labor intensive to capital intensive production methods, which would, among other things, buy more time to deal with the broader transition if it is actually going to happen.)

You need income to: - buy house - get food - buy clothes - medical care - buy nice things

if robots are that advanced that can do most of the jobs - the cost of goods will be close to zero.

government will product and distribute most of the things above and you mostly won't need any money, but if you want extra to travel etc there will always be a bunch of work to do - and not 8 hours per day

> if robots are that advanced that can do most of the jobs - the cost of goods will be close to zero.

No, the cost of goods will be the cost of the robots involved in production amortized over their production lifetime. Which, if robots are more productive than humans, will not be “near zero” from the point of view of any human without ownership of at least the number of robots needed to produce the goods that they wish to consume (whether that’s private ownership or their share of socially-owned robots). If there is essentially no demand for human labor, it will, instead, be near infinite from their perspective .

The cost of robots will be zero because robots will mine ore, process it and make other robots.

> The cost of robots will be zero because robots will mine ore, process it and make other robots.

This assumes, among other things that are unlikely to be true, that the only cost of extraction is (robot) labor, and that mining rights are free, rather than being driven by non-zero demand and finite supply.

(Another critical implicit assumption is that energy is free rather than being driven by non-zero demand and finite supply, as failing that will result in a non-zero price for robot labor even if the materials in the robot were free.)

There are still capital costs in producing the robots and infrastructure. So the costs of goods will be nonzero.

>government will product and distribute most of the things above and you mostly won't need any money

So basicially what you are saying is that a government monopoly will control everything?

Government is people, it is not some corporation.

>> government monopoly

there is no monopoly if there is no market

The market exists whether or not you choose to recognize it

Sure... in 200 years. The trick is getting through the cultural/economic shifts required to get to that point without blowing up the earth in WW3.

I think the trick is to start preparing like it will happen in 10 years and hope it will take 200, otherwise wars are imminent.

No. You become worthless to the government and will be treated accordingly

I'm pretty sure if robots are capable of doing most jobs, the only ones left will be related to prostitution or fluid/tissue/organ donation.

Rich ppl doing something to undermine their status as „the better ones”?

This is not going to happen.

We all know a post-apocalyptic world is what awaits us.

More or less Elysium is the future if ppl will still behave the same way they do now.

And I doubt ppl will change in a span of 100 years.

Wealth tax.