Yes. No "progressive" payout as there is with SS. Everyone pays the same absolute $$ in and receives the same absolute $$ out (per month--the ultimate value of the payout depends on how long the recipient lives).I think Sam was referring to my post. The difference is that the current SS system has graded benefits that reflect what you earned when you were working. My suggestion was that everyone gets the same flat, minimal benefit.
Next we have to decide if these are individual benefits or family benefits. I'd say it's most equitable if these are individual benefits earned via an individual work record. If Mr and Mrs Smith want two of these safety-net level checks in their retirement years, then they both would need to have a work history. I suppose the plan could also include provision for electing a "survivor's benefit" payout based on joint life expectancy.
Yes, an "absolute" Libertarian might balk at the idea of any govt seizure of personal assets for this purpose. I'm sympathetic to that. But given the real situation (a Supreme Court that is not strictly constructionist in outlook and which will not prohibit government wealth transfers), this is probably the least intrusive way to prevent steps that would be far worse.
It could also be done at the states, rather than at the federal level. I'm sure NY would set higher taxes and greater benefits than MS. That's the way the cookie crumbles--the taxes and benefits established by the states would be yet another factor that allowed states to tailor programs to suit their situations.