(1). It is impossible to say who is “best”, the units to meter that are impossible.
(2).It is even more impossible for any *government* to say who or what is best, because, see #(1).
(3).On the term “beneficial”, see #1 and #2.
(4). Each individual must be able to pursue his own versions of #1, #2, and #3.
(5). Optimizing the best job for each person in his view is a worthy goal. But since nobody is ANY good at deciding for everybody else what that is for everybody else, it is a fool’s errand for anyone to try or to trust anyone else to do it, no matter HOW many clueless Keynesian economics degrees he has.
(6). Evidence for #5 is the abject failure of any such attempt in socialist dictatorships, socialist democracies, and hybrid welfare states like in Europe and all the welfare programs in the United States too.
(7). Every stolen loot distribution program anywhere can hold up the loot recipient’s case as “better off” but ignores the factor of hidden and unintended consequences. Stealing from Peter to give to Paul just because Peter is rich and Paul has a need has no net moral gain at all, because Peter’s employees and his suppliers (whether he is an investor or not) will hurt.
(8). There will always be poor with you, but if you support a policy of stealing and sharing the loot, the corruption will ALWAYS entangle the guy that has the big guns of “the law” that does the looting.
(9). I was a missionary for about two decades, and I have shared much with the poor. I have participated in “sharing the bounty” in poor countries and it is a feeling of elation. It is indeed better to give than to receive. We visited people that have (the “have”s) and they gave gladly of their own free will.
When the looters leave well enough alone, and follow these norms, history has shown you get the greatest possible *material* benefit for any group relevant to the discussion of UBI, welfare, the poor, the rich, and inequality.
The optimum outcome is where you get on balance the best for everyone.
The optimum outcome in an economy is achieved in other words, by a pure free market unchained from the arrogant chains of “solving inequality” hubris.