It's a fascinating idea, and it's a real challenge to market capitalism as we know it in the long run. But the biggest problem with any such system is unequal

It's a fascinating idea, and it's a real challenge to market capitalism as we know it in the long run. But the biggest problem with any such system is unequal need. Need states are stochastic at the individual level. They might appear to be neater and more deterministic at the aggregate level, but a system designed in aggregate is bound to have challenges at the margins. I could easily see this system becoming, essentially, a fixed amount that just shifts everyone's personal needs/income graphs up by X amount a year. Above that point, everyone still needs income to fit any needs not met by X. An unintended consequence, for example, would be that this system places an extra burden on the disabled, or the parents of multiple children, or the elderly, etc., to take on more work to meet their greater needs. By eliminating need-based welfare and replacing it with a flat payment structure, we'd basically be handwaving away the fact that need states are variable. It's possible that I'm misunderstanding how this system works. And many of the same arguments I'm making against this system could certainly be leveled against our current system. I guess I'm struggling to see how this system has greater utility and fewer externalities than the current one.