I agree with almost all of this, but:

"It is not just their approach to benefits that is backwards in vision, but the whole assumption that "full employment" is the thing we should be aiming for. Such a policy actually highlights even more starkly the difference between being independently wealthy on the one hand and having to work for the basics of life on the other. In an era in which more and more of our tasks can be automated or even exported we should be aiming more to live off the financial assets that past productivity has created."

I would say that trying to "live off the financial assets..." is part of the problem, for now. The gov't is busy liquidating all of the nation's assets to pay for current consumption, and they won't last forever! I would say that realising people need to start working for money again instead of borrowing from the past/mortgaging the future is more the issue. Of course, once people are working and producing again we'll want them to save as much as possible so that

1) Capital stock will increase, allowing people to produce the same amount with less labour and therefore take more leisure time (possibly - I gather the jury's still out on this, economically)
2) Stock of "financial capital" will increase; ie. by exporting goods to other countries we can import more from them later and allow them to do the work for us.

Of course this is predicated on the re-allocation of ground rents from landlords to the community as you attest.