[mjevans]

I find the argument to be slightly different.

Today money matters in so much as getting things that need to be done to happen. Things like quality medical care, a place to live, and 'workers' to get those things done.

Money past that, money as a form of arbitrary luxury, is far too transitory. Once you reach that point you have very little marginal change in your situation, status signaling, or other measures; you have reached saturation on the 'good' money can do for you.

I think that most of the people who support Universal-BIG just want to get rid of the wasteful feedback loops in the low end of that equation. Everyone should have good food, good living areas, and good healthcare as a member of society. It establishes a more level playing field for all other activities and removes a lot of the wasteful expenditures of time and energy. It also cuts down on the 'alternative' means of achieving such basic support (ending up in jail or revolving hospitalization and being a drain on society).

Does this mean money should cease existing? No, but for a lot of things it would no longer be related.