Stipends for lower income folks better than income

A common standard among progressives is that everyone should get a free income of 1k per month. I think that's excessive. Instead, I think everyone with below average income should get 100 bucks in cash stipend and a hundred in food stamps. It's too much of a struggle to survive for lower income folks, and a small amount is helpful without being excessive. The philosophy behind it, is social contract, where the rich shouldn't be allowed to hoard excessive wealth while the poor languish. It's something like the top 1 percent own more than the bottom half of the country, and that's unacceptable. A simple wealth tax can help with this redistribution. Yes a work requirement can be fitting for the stipend.... welfare already has work requirements elsewhere so it's a functional established practice 

So you can steal money to pay to people who have to work for it.

Sounds a lot like government employment already.... that's working out isn't it? Government services are reliable and affordable? (veterans affairs cosmic horror sounds)

Communism/theft/collectivism is the root of all evil.

Yes I know you're claiming to be a student of Rand these days. Well enjoy the thumbs up while it lasts. Yes you have confirmed yet again that if you say things people agree with they will agree with you saying it (hold the presses).

Should society reward unproductive people and punish productive people. What would be the moral justification for this?

It's funny how Californians complain that nobody wants to come in and build things and lower the costs of living that increase every year due to shortages.

But at the same time, they punish the very people who have the will and the means to improve their lives by building new homes and industries. This mantra exists because of the richman bad/poorman good false dichotomy. California would have imploded long ago if it were not for imported slave labor from across the borders.

When California loses the near monopoly on tech and entertainment there will be no buttress left. Just them and the farmers they're trying to enslave. It won't end well.

One vote to you for office or whatever written petition you can draw up to legislate this .

Here is where progressives are liars. Conservatives have proposed what is called the "fair tax" this tax would give everyone a $1000 a month stipend but progressives oppose it because conservatives came up with it. It is undeniably better than the status quo and liberals still oppose it because it actually would acco.plish many of the goals whereif they were actually accomplished would give people no reason to vote democrat. 

It is like when conservatives wanted to legalize gay marriage but liberals voted it down because it was called "civil marraige" but was literally the same thing but by a different name. They literally wanted their constituents to suffer over conservatives offering equal rights but just not using the preferred terminology. 

"Society"

Would be the moral justification.

Otherwise.

Might as well euthanise the driftwood.

there was a time when charity was pity, not a reward.

For sure, the concept and definition has broadened somewhat.

Just as  demographics have broadened accordingly.

Or vice versa.