Maybe he's planning to, or maybe he has, idk. We can only really evaluate him on what he does.

And I argue it's not a given that someone is a bad person just because they have billions of dollars.

I don't misunderstand your point, I reject it. When have we ever seen a government care more about taking care of its people than gaining power for its rulers? The more money and responsibility you give to a government, the more corrupt it becomes.

That said, I do think something like UBI makes sense. Make it a simple cash pass-through where everyone is brought above the poverty line. I personally would prefer to structure it as a negative income tax, so you qualify if your income is below some amount, and everyone is brought between the poverty line and a "living wage" (say, 2X poverty line). It's equivalent to UBI, just with less sticker shock and a clearer paper trail (need to file a tax return). Look at the government shutdown, social security is still going out, I want NIT to be the same (and ideally replace SS).

I say we replace all welfare programs with a UBI-type system. Charities would then exist to help people manage that money, get out of addictions, etc... If people are mistreated at work, they'll have the option of leaving. If a child is mistreated, child protection services (could be a charity) can move the child and those tax dollars to a better home. UBI would solve a ton of problems just by ensuring everyone has enough.

If we touch billionaires' money, it should be with inheritance laws. I think we should tax all assets as if they were liquidated if they aren't donated to a qualifying charity. That's the biggest loophole I know about, and it should be closed.

Careful about worshipping at the altar rationality, it is as prone as any god to leading people astray.