> Introduction beforehand sows the seed for a direct transfer of wealth from the 49% haves to the 51% have-nots.

And why is that inherently bad? It may be bad (I happen not to think so) but would like more than a bare assertion that that is the case.

For example, in favor: from an economics PoV, increased liquidity and discretionary income on the part of the poorer population should increase economic activity (e.g. velocity of money) which is good for business.