> Ok, those are valid examples (also, how about free roads for everyone? Everyone seems to take that for granted and wouldn't dream about calling it "socialist")

This exactly.

> but in your original post you wrote about "a flat benefit for everyone" that doesn't reduce with income level

Yeah, my writing was confusing. By “for everyone” I meant “no matter the income”, not that we should give children's allowance to single adults. Just that we stop index these things on income. By the way I also think we should give more in nature (“the medical operation is free”), and less in cash, but that's independent.