Citizens Dividend
© Jeffrey J. Smith (USA), 22 June 1996
Thanks for forwarding the comparison of UBI vs Superannuation. Here's another variant for your consideration, the Citizens Dividend (CiDi).
Unlike the others, it truly is not redistribution but predistribution. It is not based on an income tax. It distributes the money we (a society) spends on the nature we (they) use before any elite or state can corral and misspend it.
As a dividend, it rises and falls with the value of the nature in use - a value which always tends to rise over time, always faster than the inflation rate of the price of goods and services that people DO produce. Hence the CiDi is inflation-proof.
Indeed, since speculation in land and borrowing against landed collateral create a large portion of the debt that drives inflation, when rent is turned into a social share, then it becomes harder for debt to debase society's monetary system. When inflation is held in check, then the real deflation going on (the drop in costs thanks to rises in productivity) is exposed. The cost of living drops, magnifying the purchasing power of the CiDi.
Were geonomics in place - this system of land dues and land dividends - then it would be harder for one to profit by developing one's own site; easier to profit by improving one's own community. It'd be harder to profit from speculation, easier to profit from society-wide deflation. Thus you align the interests of self and society, of people and planet.
As a dividend going to all citizens, there is no test of means or needs. One need not fail to qualify (very psychologically damaging). Nevertheless, one might wonder if the CiDi would be sufficient for the elderly and others.
First note that the system of dues and dividends is very progressive. While the dividend would go equally (or equitably, depending if your society recognizes tenure) to all residents/citizens, the dues would be scaled according to the value of the nature one owns. And the very rich tend to own the very best and most valuable that nature has to offer.
Second, of a society's gross expenditure, rent, or the money they spend on the nature they use, i.e., the value of the nature in the ground beneath the home, of the raw petroleum in the fuel, of the tree in the paper, etc, is immense - anywhere from 25% to 33% of a society's outgo. Even when divided by all qualifying citizens, it still provides an ample cushion.
Plus, where income taxes are reduced, there site values rise by an even greater amount, since there's no more deadweight loss in collecting the tax (the costs of accounting, enforcement, etc). Therefore, converting from taxes and annuation to dues and dividends does a better job of distribution (not redistribution) for all members of society, even the neediest.