Starting capital, or permanent alimony since childhood? That's the question.
While the aims of basic heritage and basic income, overlap in terms of a better quality of life for the people to be achieved, the approaches for this are very different...
The basic heritage is aimed at an adequate participation of everyone in "what is there", that is, in the substance that the earth offers us all. "What's there" expressly includes what was made of the earth by the ancestors. It is the heritage of all of us, for better or for worse (e.g. nuclear waste). It is up to us living people not only to distribute the earth itself, but also the goods left behind justly among us, whatever the word just may mean in this case. For example, I don't think it's fair: everyone inherits the risk of nuclear waste and few inherit the money that was previously earned with this technology.
The basic heritage is therefore aimed at what is there and for what no living person has bothered himself. The basic income, on the other hand, aims at an ongoing supply, a share of the country's current economic output. The problem with this is that it is aimed at the ongoing work performance of fellow human beings. Whether someone can claim a legitimate right to the work performance of his fellow human beings without making a corresponding commitment in return is questionable.
In another respect, the basic income is questionable. It partially overrides a tax and regulatory mechanism of our economic system: income is usually the result of a economic useful activity. If this is partially abolished, undesirable developments may occur which will affect the economy and prosperity as a whole.
Let me tell you a little story: