Taxes are a cost, but that cost is passed on to the consumer. So upping corporate tax will only cause prices to rise, which then will cost more for the products you want the machines to make in the first place.
What this article is suggesting is that eventually, you should be paid to be alive, having put no risk or labored no effort to justify the expense of keeping someone alive. That's the silliest notion if you follow through with that, logically. We have learned throughout the years that overpopulation is a problem on the environment and developing nations are shrinking their population, so why would you want to encourage people to have more and more children? If you pay some arbitrary value to keep someone alive, that arbitrary value will have some discretionary spending ability. So then a family of 9, where each member adds to the households total discretionary spending capacity will be better off than a family of 4. Want that new TV? Everyone chip in their 1/9 of uncle Sam's money. With no end in sight. If most people don't work anymore, why manufacture at all? What goods or services are manufacturers or "owners of production" trying to barter for? Does this sound like a winning proposition to you: "I'm going to take by force your $1,000.00. When you make $1,000.00 in product and sell it, I will give you back $1,000.00".
Suddenly, it seems hardly worth being a manufacturer in a world where everyone else gets to live for free. Maybe communism fell for a reason? The real problem here is we have 7,000,000,000 people we really don't need anymore. Just like the transformation from an agrarian society, where you had massive households to ones where family sizes came down quite a bit in industrialized societies, we enter a period of time where family sizes and populations start to shrink. There will always be some jobs you can't automate, like actors, like politicians, creative fields, judges, etc... so there will be people around us doing work for a very long time. Just probably not as many.