As a software dev myself, I must say with all due respect that devs are not known for their intuition.

Human nature, regardless of political systems, dictates that one and their family must provide trade-worthy value to receive trade-worthy value. There are plenty of exceptions to that thanks to charity (at any scale) and social policies that allow for some to provide little trade-worthy value and still receive essential benefits (for example, those with disabilities). But if there were an option to provide no trade-worthy value and receive completely satisfying goods, accommodations, and freedoms in return, then productive people would naturally feel foolish for spending time working any more than they like to. There is some point where there wouldn’t be enough people to maintain the benefits for the non-workers. Although people would offer to work as good will, labor and supply shortages would be far more frequent or constant. So should we allow the option, but only a limited amount so that the threshold of value-produced to value-consumed is never met? It’s unlikely that there would be good relations between the class of people in society that would be gifted with that option and those that aren’t.

Pro-abortion in the case of adultery or rape. Plus it is from the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament so it’s a Christian thing by inheritance from Judaism.

Reminder that the money is printed out of thin air and it’s not really that we need anyone’s stored wealth. Not even liquidating a mansion or ten from a billionaire, or from all billionaires, is going to solve our problems. Sure they are worth a lot to one person, but how much is a mansion worth to society in effect? Not much really.

The system is designed to have poor people. It must so that there is incentive to work. Otherwise we would have to force people to work. I’m not trying to justify the ways things are, I just don’t see going after stored wealth as solving the problem especially when it is not their assets we need or their made up currency.