[flagged]
I'm in favor of all of that. We're trying to have a society here, not sure what your problem is.
Contributing to the next generation's upbringing is the least we can do, even if some won't have kids of their own they would still (directly) indirectly benefit from this.
You can see the rates for this in Europe, Australia, Canada and South Korea here:
You tell me.
Indeed: Why not? Certainly a better investment than yet another round of tax cuts for billionaires.
These are both obviously silly examples. The 'Where do we draw the line?!' answer can in this case be answered with 'On the side that feeds hungry children'.
In that case, people will always self-organise such structures anyway. Even amongst the most failed of the failed states, eventually you will end up with at least someone claiming to be the chief law enforcer (of whatever kind), someone to look after the kids (i.e. education) while the rest works to provide for food, and some sort of fire brigade.
It will just be many orders of magnitude more inefficient than what a large government that governs more than a few dozen to hundred people can establish.
Granted, our systems aren't perfect either. People fall through the cracks sometimes or have to deal with inane bureaucracy. But you generally won't see large encampments of homeless citizens openly defecating on the sidewalks or school children being shamed for their parents not having lunch money.
Now you're talking, let's do it. UBI FTW.