Hmm. It might be a good idea to frame it in terms of freedom, as in freedom to fail(or, more specifically, freedom to survive failure). Generally speaking, this smacks of socialism, and the exact people who are most likely to oppose that are libertarians. It might help to highlight the liberating effect this should have on the poor, and the idea that a stronger safety net will encourage people to take risks(starting businesses, etc.)
Though one thing nags at me. Wouldn't printing lots of money cause massive inflation? Or are you talking about redistribution?
I'm thinking it would be a prudent idea to phase in gradually, otherwise humanity in general might not be able to deal with it. Right now nobody is thinking in terms of "There's plenty of everything for everyone" Needs are more than satisfied. Wants will never be, simply because everyone wants a yacht but, collectively, we can't make enough to go round. There is enough food for every man, woman and child on this mudball to eat like fucking kings and queens but we assume food is hard to come by, because we have to pay for it. It's first degree circular logic.
Problem is, we (collectively) need to do shit to sustain this abundance. We need to work. Capitalism pays us for working and we spend that shit on food and stuff. If we didn't need and want all this shit, would we, collectively, just stop working or would we, collectively see sense and not fuck everything up completely? If you are convinced you know the answer, bear in mind that the question is hypothetical. We won't know until we try it.
However, just in case the answer is negative, cash could be pumped into the bottom in a steady stream letting it trickle up gradually, elevating standards of living, across the board. Right now our economy is set up between having billions in the bank and able to aquire anything and everything and starving to death at the other end of the scale. We don't need
to take filthy rich off the table, per se. Money junkies could still be able to book trips into space and crash a Lambo every month or so or whatever the fuck they do with all that shit but there's no reason the bottom end of the scale couldn't be somewhere around what we'd term "Middle class".
Or does the global economy require the poor and starving? I know it categorically and absolutely must have a ready supply of poor and dying people, to exist in it's current, utterly retarded form but perhaps it could function more efficiently if we made all the poor and dying a fully productive resource, working 9-5 to produce more food and stuff for a fair share of the gravy?