You just said that telling someone their life is worth a specific amount would help maintain that amount of money. So what is that amount? Two cents? Ten billion dollars? I mean, without a number the statement is pretty meaningless.
OK now we are making progress. So a life is worth half a house. What is that value? Do you use an average house in Hong Kong? In Little Rock?
Well worldwide average. So worst case scenario you own half a house and starve to death because you refused to work and leveraged your equity into shiny things
Do you honestly think this? Do you have anything to support the notion? And this is a good thing, is it? First, governments target who they give handouts to, usually to those most in need. Second, they do so at a level that intends to help them manage day to day while also encouraging them to work, as work is what makes the economy turn. A person in need will, at least in the UK, receive far more assistance than the price of half a house. The maximum one can receive on Universal Credit, for example, is c.£13-14k, so over just ten years you're ahead of the price of half a house. But those who do not need do not get anything. And this seems reasonable. Also, are you suggesting that a government, once giving someone the value of half a house, washes their hands of them with regard further financial assistance? That the government would let them starve if they had invested that money in a house... or, heaven forbid, in stocks and shares and see their money wiped out in a crash?? And you would support such a government? Your thinking on this matter seems ill-thought out, I'm afraid.