There are a few good points made here.
What good points are you referring to? Are you referring to the ones I quoted here:
In a time of immense wealth, no one should live in poverty, nor should the middle class be consigned to a future of permanent stagnation or anxiety.
They might not experience poverty, but society itself will suffer from abundance of negligent people if ever Chris Hughes' desire comes into fruition. Wouldn't it also be unfair for rich people who worked hard for that money?
There are many ways to pay for a guaranteed income. However, I do think that the resources can and should come from the people who most benefited from the structure of the economy.
I agree that resources should come from people who got the most benefit out of the economy's structure but I think they shouldn't provide it for free. With their money, they can open more business to help give jobs to others who needs it.
We had tax rates at 50 percent for several decades after [World War II]. In the same period, we had record economic growth and broad-based prosperity. Im not making the case, in the book and in general, that we just need higher taxes. It matters what our tax dollars are going to.
Rulers of that era and now are different. Economic growth and prosperity by that time came from spoils of war, not mainly from taxes.
Cash is just the simplest and most efficient thing to eradicate poverty and stabilize the middle class. -Bloomberg
Cash would not simply eradicate poverty and stabilize the middle class, it would just make them more negligent and slothful.