I'd vote for a tax-based income rather than individual shareholding-based income, because of simple risk considerations. Dividing and mixing of risks should be done as much as possible in order to minimize victimization of random individuals.
No victimization. Actually a government would be an owner of shares in all companies (Though without voting rights.). The monetary value of all dividends is split equally among all citizens. Well, either way it would be a form of taxation of corporations. Dividends or corporate taxes, whatever a name we use for this.
The idea is that this would fix the cash flow in society.
Now it goes like this: People work in factories, they make money their, they spend money to buy stuff they produced, money from stores go to factory, factory pays employees, etc, etc. The cash flow is a closed loop. Well, generally speaking.
Now, with more automatization and robotics in the future, this cash flow circle is destroyed. This might be happening already in top industrial countries and keeps them in constant recession like Japan, or explains stagnation of wages in US middle class.
Machines and robots work in factory, people don't work or work less and don't make enough money to buy products made in factories. Money stays in factory, doesn't flow to society, the circle is broken. People are not making money, can't buy factory products, factory produces less and less. This might be a new form of recession. People might borrow a lot of money to keep buying, but this have its limits.
I have a feeling that Switzerland is going the right way with "helicopter money". They will need to tax corporations more to make money flow again.
It's used to be factories-people-stores-factories, new model must be factories-government-people-stores-factories.
You made this comment below my item 2). Well, item 2) which is meant to reduce/control supply is not meant to prevent "Overconsumption". I meant it to be a neccessary second tool for fighting deflation. Central banks are "printing money" and doing Quantitative Easing for many years already and still had no success in fighting deflation and stimulating consumption. I believe that the reason for that failure is oversupply (~excess work) rather than low consumption, which no money in the world can change, also no basic income, unless 2) is included.
I think it could be the problem of broken cash flow circle rather than overproduction. Overproduction will happen very often due to saturation of the market with some products. However when new products are invented people readily buy them. For example when computers and smartphones were invented it opened new market for new products and increase of GDP. Likewise when new TVs or new car models come around many people change old for new, and not only one item per family but market expended to one car and TV set per person. "Overproduction" is very fluent beast. Can you imagine how many robots per person people could have in the future? I'm sure, thanks to them, everybody can live in a mansion thanks to cheap construction cost thanks to robots building houses.
Good point, I also thought that way initially. But I think it doesn't work because employers immediately would use the basic income as an excuse to drop wages. With official work time limits, the wage dropping is much more limited because the difference between the working and non-working people is lower. Let's take for example 4 hours official work time per day. My idea is to directly reward the idling during the rest of the day. Those who do not idle enough and work more than 4 hours (**) should be penalized for doing so because they produce harmful excess supply, without being actually more efficient. If the upper limit of work time remains constantly high as today, then the economic pressure on everybody to work maximum amount of time will increase during deflation, which in turn increases deflation even more like a race to the bottom --> vicious circle. It is important to understand that too much productivity and too efficient productivity increases deflation, thus effectively worsens economic crisis. It sounds paradoxical, but it is truth.
Cure for this is to unleash human creativity and entrepreneurship to invent and produce new items, and not the same and more old items. Otherwise, as I mentioned above, automatization of production line, meaning factory workers working fewer hours and for less money, causing interruption of money circulation between business and consumer and back, could be the main culprit of today's prolonged recessions in many countries. This is a new phenomenon and possibly it can't be fixed by traditional market mechanisms and stimuli.
I see it as a double-sided coin:
1. so far we penalized only excess idling,
but the other forgotten side of the coin is that
2. excess work should be penalized too, because it is as harmful as too much idling (*).
If only excess work is penalized (2), then demand overwhelms supply, which is bad obviously and leads to inflation and shortage of goods. But everybody thinks this is good ("idling is a sin, work is holy").
If only excess idling is penalized (1), then supply overwhelms demand, which is also bad and leads to deflation. This is the unknown side of the coin which is the cause of the current deflation, where everybody wonders why printing money and working harder doesn't help.
* By "idling" I mean idling in terms of real labour work. Of course everyones idle time remains an option to work for personal hobbies.
** The 4 hours per day is an example only, and is meant to be an average. Of course everyone is free to work 12 hours per day for a couple of weeks or months, but he has to go in vacation eventually for as much as he accumulated overtime work. Else he has to pay penalty tax, which will be used to reduce work and supply somewhere else instead.
Well, the strict control of time worked by employees might be too artificial to be of any service to society. Likewise, how can we calculate when the overproduction exists and of what products? I would let market forces to determine this.
In the future it might be easier to figure things out, you can give people certain amount of money but let them chose what and how much they will buy. Consumer likes to have choices and factories will have input what to produce. Even in moneyless society, people could place orders in advance for some major products through smart devices, this way factories will know how much to produce. However, such simplification of the market, might lead to production inefficiencies, lack of new investments and humper creativity of new products. There might be a solution in the future for this that escapes my imagination, and surely will be, giving a genius of human brain. Not mentioning smart supercomputers of the future.