> First, it is highly paternalistic to tell people what to spend money on. Indeed, and that's kind-of the point: (1) you eliminate bullshit spending (on things

> First, it is highly paternalistic to tell people what to spend money on. Indeed, and that's kind-of the point: (1) you eliminate bullshit spending (on things like alcohol, tobacco, lottery) that many people are prone to do, but that they arguably shouldn't (to some extent, those products are "predatory"); (2) it provides a minimal standard (survival) yet incentivizes people to work (be productive) to increase their standard of living (e.g. to be able to buy alcohol); (3) avoids inflation, as only a very limited set of products would be affected by increased demand (in particular, not real estate, as "free" housing would only be available in government-owned real estate) that the government can plan in advance. My prior is that "bureaucracy" can be reduced significantly with modern IT technologies.