Yes, its still socialism. Most socialist economies (and for that matter most capitalist economies) are mixed economies. They contain elements of both. It is my opinion that increasing the elements of socialism tends to depress and weaken an economy while increasing the free market principles of an economy makes it stronger and leads to economic expansion. History tends to bear this out. A program that weakens the value of the currency may still allow for wealth building technically, but it pushes the overall economy toward an environment where wealth building becomes increasingly difficult, and may lower the rewards of wealth disincentivizing entrepreneurship.
By the way, I've noticed that although I upvote each of your comments and replies whether I agree with them or not, you do not return the favor. Why is that?
Well that's not "socialism". Socialism is about the abolition of private ownership of the means of production, and equality of outcome. I'll grant that providing a UBI in a mixed economy is step in the direction towards equality of outcome, but it's still a far cry from that.
Regarding your claim that essentially redistribution depresses and weakens an economy, and that this is born out by history, this is patently false. Historical analysis of data, and expert modelling, show that higher inequality leads to lower not higher growth rates (I cover this in a blog post here - https://politicsforpeoplenotcorporations.wordpress.com/2016/06/01/the-jobs-and-growth-election-one-last-tilt-at-neoliberalism/). There's clearly a sweet spot somewhere in the centre, where either of the extremes (i.e. laissez faire and socialism) are detrimental. But to suggest that we are anywhere near the socialism extreme and that countering some of the economic regression that we've had in the last 40 years of neoliberalism will hamper economic growth is farcical.
Regarding voting, you might not want to know why I don't vote your posts. I'd suggest you worry about where your votes go, and I'll worry about where mine go.
And here you are attacking private property as theft. You pretend you are against the abolition of private property, but its exactly what you base your comments about UBI being "just" on. You're a socialist, and your plan is socialist, and it will be bad for the economy and for people's liberty. The sad thing is there will be much support for it because people think they can get something for nothing.
I'm not a socialist, and nor do I have any desire to abolish private property. This is just a strawman.
Your posted quote immediately following this thread: As Proudhon remarked - "Property is theft".
Which he did. How does that mean I want to abolish private property??
Lol he doesn't want to abolish private property, he wants to steal it. I guess that's better in his eyes..