I overall like what you have to say on these matters, but I think a few of the solutions you envision are misguided. First, on taxes:
I would suggest that taxation is the key and, rather than the taxation of machines as proposed by Bill Gates, that tax is used to nudge our behaviours away from undesirable outcomes where we, for example, might tax activities that are damaging to the environment.
Let us hypothesize a tax for businesses and people called the Murder Tax. If you are willing to pony up and pay for your undesirable behavior, you are entitled to murder someone. Perhaps someone’s negative reviews on Yelp or Amazon are costing you more money than you’d lose by paying the tax, so you do the economically savvy thing and pay the tax to murder that person and eliminate the problem.
This seems far-fetched until you consider that carbon taxes are murder taxes. In fact, a carbon tax is basically a mass murder tax.
These taxes, then, just create a new type of privilege. Those privileges go to those elites who can afford the taxes, or to those businesses for whom the tax makes economic sense to pay. In this sense, taxes become a gatekeeping mechanism for murder, theft, and all sorts of disenfranchisement you can inflict on someone.
I agree that a carbon tax is probably better than no carbon tax, but I don’t think it is a remotely sensible longterm solution.
Where workers own the business it changes the whole dynamic, for the better.
This makes no sense to me as a solution to a system of automation that is eliminating workers. Worker ownership is meaningless in a factory with no workers. The problem is that we perceive humans not working as a bad thing but, in a world where robots outperform us at virtually all tasks presently lumped into the category of work, it’s a problem if humans are working, because it just means they’re getting in the way. The social change that needs to happen is the validation of leisure and hobbies as worthy human enterprises. Just like with work, leisure and hobbies lead to innovation and social growth; they simply aren’t financially compensated the way work is.
I think UBI offers the potential to address this if we zoom out and say, instead, that when citizens own civilization it changes the whole dynamic, for the better. If we peg UBI to economic growth, not to inflation or to some perception of a minimum standard of living, then it lets all citizens own civilization. If civilization sees massive growths in production and output, the amount citizens get for their UBI payment goes up. Everyone will be directly invested in a civilization that advances.