A majority for the tax: 57 % want to tax robots that replace jobs, 29 % are opposed and 14 % take no side.
The gender divide is spectacular: men vote in favour unanimously, while women mostly reject the measure and supply most of the undecided. The global result therefore rests entirely on that gap.
By age, the 45-54s are unanimously in favour and the 18-24s clearly so, while the 25-34s oppose it as a bloc. The over-65s oscillate between « yes » and abstention.
The debate converges on a single logic: what is taxed is not the machine but the social contribution that disappears with the job. The most endorsed voices propose channelling that revenue into pensions, or into training, retraining, even a support income.
The thread nonetheless contains its own objection, and it comes from a voter in favour: taxing could slow innovation, reduce company competitiveness and hold back the productivity gains that also create new jobs. It is the classic counter-argument, here voiced by the majority camp itself.
A final contribution sums up the round's embarrassment as a joke, suggesting that if robots behave like humans we may as well tax them like humans, while admitting to having no idea how it would work in practice. The vote settles the principle, then, while the debate concedes that no mechanism has been sketched.