It actually doesn't. You are mistakenly comparing this to socialist redistribution. In which case you would be correct. He was not proposing that. He was proposing something that has never been done before so those comparisons do not fit.

He was proposing more like every person is given a share in a company. Let's call it our GLOBAL or NATIONAL economy depending upon how large the location was it was implemented.

You have one share that you cannot get rid of. You CAN invest your own dividends to get more shares over time if you want.

When the economy makes income it distributes dividends to all shareholders based upon how many you have. In a sense, he was talking about something like Steem Power, but unlike steem power you cannot get rid of it.

I'd even argue that people need not reinvest in it. The idea is that if the economy fares well then those dividends paid on a daily basis should hopefully be sufficient for basic food, clothing, and shelter. They may be worth more than that, but the hope is they would provide that.

So let's say the economy does poorly and it DOES not produce enough. Now that dividend would not be enough to provide those things. Yet, neither would those needed resources materialize in another system simply because you willed them into existence.

He was also NOT proposing people not work. He was proposing a way such that as we increasingly remove the need for some human jobs, that people could still be cared for. You would be receiving a dividend based upon how the economy fared. This would not stop you from intentionally doing other work, being entrepreneurial and getting income and producing in other ways. However, if you do invent something and are doing great then odds are the economy is going to do better as well, so all dividends increase.

It requires no central planning. It does not require planned handouts. It is purely mathematical based upon what funds and resources may actually be there. It does not magically solve all problems as this cannot be done. If the resources are not there then they cannot be magically distributed regardless of what system you use.

He is also NOT proposing taking funds from people and redistributing them. It is interesting and the first time I've heard such a proposal. As such it gives a lot to think about.

However, it is NOT what you just described. That fits nicely with traditional socialist and redistributionist ideas. I'm a bit opponent of such ideas.

EDIT: One thing I am unclear of (like I said this is a new idea) is where this idea of the economy doing well, where IT's FUNDS come from. Is it a tax? If so then that is redistributionist.