No it doesn't, the case for such a scheme depends on two kinds of arguments: (1) intrinsic arguments that people have a right to a portion of collective wealth,

No it doesn't, the case for such a scheme depends on two kinds of arguments: (1) intrinsic arguments that people have a right to a portion of collective wealth, to the means of life, or to the means of being able to freely spend their time as they see fit; (2) and instrumental arguments that it would rebalance the power of capital over labour, lead to various positive social outcomes, and tame the plutocracy that is ruining Western democracies. If your standard is 'responsible spending', the counterfactual baseline is keeping this money in the hands of the wealthy. For obvious reasons - diminishing marginal utility, the breakdown of the social compact, the corruption of politics - I don't think they would spend a dollar on the margin any more 'responsibly'. What about shared infrastructure projects? I'm not suggesting this ought to replace the state, simply that global wealth can be equalised without reallocating that wealth to the state to spend.