Starting capital, or permanent alimony since childhood? That's the question.
While the aims of basic inheritance and basic income overlap in terms of achieving a better quality of life for the people, the respective approaches are very different:
The basic inheritance is aimed at an adequate participation of everyone in "what is there", i.e. in the substance that the Earth offers us all. "What's there" implicitely includes what was made of the Earth by the ancestors. It is the heritage of all of us, for better or worse. It is up to us living people not only to distribute the earth itself, but also the goods left behind equitably among us, whatever the word equitable or fair may mean in this case. What I don't consider to be fair, for example: Everyone inherits the risk of nuclear waste, environmental degradation and public debt and a few inherit the money that was previously earned through it.
The basic inheritance is therefore aimed at what is there and for what no living person has bothered him or herself. The basic income, on the other hand, aims at an ongoing supply, a share of the country's current economic output. The problem with this is that it is aimed at the ongoing work performance of fellow human beings. Whether someone can claim a legitimate right to the work performance of his or her fellow human beings without making a corresponding commitment in return is questionable.
The basic income is also questionable in another respect. It partially overrides a tax and regulatory mechanism of our economic system: Income is usually the result of an economically viable activity. If this is to be partially abolished, undesirable developments may occur which will affect the economy and prosperity as a whole.
Let me tell you a little story: