Would you agree that a citizens dividend is preferable to a UBI?
I have concerns about it being disbursed on a regular basis unless all economic rents are taxed appropriately - otherwise, it would accelerate inequality growth.
It's worth mentioning that taxes don't actually fund anything in the modern system. As soon as money is paid in taxes, it ceases to exist as money. I've already confirmed that with my local central bank. They've also confirmed that all government spending is made possible by the creation of new money. Taxes merely create fiscal space.
I basically only support UBI if it is funded by taxing economic rent, which essentially makes it a citizen's dividend. So, yes... I want a citizen's dividend, but specifically a citizen's dividend large enough to constitute a universal basic income. What I advocate would be both a UBI and a citizen's dividend.
I'm aware that taxation doesn't fund government. It's a bit more complicated than that though. You pay taxes, that money ceases to exist, while the government takes on debt and borrows from the central bank for current spending, then the bank prints new money for that. Destroy money on one hand, make more on the other. And, it's worth considering that not all countries have central banks or sovereign money systems. The biggest function of taxation and issuance of money is to create markets. Taxes create a demand for the currency. Governments issue money, then demand payment in that money, creating a general demand for the money, which leads to the emergence of markets. (Cf. David Graeber, "Debt: The First 5,000 Years")
A citizen's dividend, however, would be different. It is not government spending per se, but redistribution, taking money from rent from private landlords and giving it to everyone. A government could just redistribute straight-up. Even if they do just tax into non-existence and print on the other hand for the redistribution, the result is the same though.
Government debt isn't debt in the way that most people think. It would be more correct to think of it as the savings held by non-government. The neo-classical belief is that the government is creating fiscal space when they sell securities, enabling them to create more money to spend into the economy, but the money they received for the securities didn't come from the FIRE sector and not the real economy (ergo, they didn't create fiscal space in the real economy).
Most countries that I've looked at don't include government securities (which are effectively savings) in their monetary aggregates. The one exception I've found is Japan, who include it in broadly defined money (L).
I'm glad to hear you say that you'd only use a CD or UBI after implementing a tax on economic rents. That clears a lot up, actually.