It's not a novel idea, this is Milton Friedman's prescription for an efficient welfare state. I remember a quote he gave regarding the idea something like this "if the problem with the poor is that they don't have enough money, than the solution is to give them some." Tons of people were pissed at the idea, fiscal conservatives who push for the destruction of the welfare state hated it, as did liberals who thought the incentives provided by a paternalistic welfare were necessary for ethical welfare.

Friedmans logic was this. Many welfare programs in the US will take away $1 in benefits for every $2 dollars that a recipient earns. If a welfare recipient is enlisted in several programs, (childcare, direct welfare, health care, food stamps, ect) the recipient has a disincentive to work because making two dollars in wages could result in the loss of more than $2 dollars in benefits. Friedman said that every one would be entitled to $15k a year and for every $2 dollars a person made they would lose $1 dollar of their $15k. (I made up these numbers, I don't know if he gave a specific number or suggested enough to bring people over the poverty line or what he suggested).

Such a program would be bureaucratically efficient, would alleviate poverty, avoid paternalism and prevent disincentives to work that can be found in some welfare programs. The idea was never really considered and was mostly disliked. I thought it was clever as are many of Miltons ideas. If you ever want to research specific economic I would recommend seeing if Milton wrote on it and see what he had to say. Even when I disagree with his ethics I usually find his commentary educational and thought provoking.

PS. I like the economist despite it's stuffy conservatism, but this concept is such a classic Friedmanist idea that I'm shocked that they didn't give him a nod in the article. It's really part of the economic conservative DNA to be aware of the ideas of the most prominent conservative economist of the current era.