I accept that some people will simply not like this idea. I cannot let people misrepresent it, however. I feel I must correct inaccurate statements about its structure and functioning; obvious errors related to it that are nothing but objections from the top of a person's head who has made no attempt to understand it are unfair to me.

You do confuse, I think, "getting something for nothing" with the money for the income coming from nothing. I understand being wary about how abstract money (as currency) is in this proposal, but it would not be one bit more abstract than money created in QE is. So we are already in an economy with money that is that abstract, and if the economy collapses it won't be for that reason (i.e. that people stopped accepting it and using it as money because it was too abstract).

On the other hand, in this paradigm--and unlike the current system--there would be a strict limit at any time on how much money could be created. To have hyper-inflation the capability to crank out unlimited amounts of money must exist.

Even debt incurred by the central government could not be used to increase the money supply.

The central bank would not be a 'lender of last resort'. If the central government wanted to incur debt it would have to sell bonds like state governments in the U.S. do at present, then create taxes to pay them off or take that money out of future revenues. That form of debt does not increase the money supply.

[I am presuming that government at all levels would still have the authority to sell bonds and levy taxes, even though government at all levels would be receiving funding without either being involved; this paradigm does not necessarily include terminating that authority.]