I figure that mixing is a good idea, and that was the basis of the "Universal Living" economic system that I have been writing up over the years. Universal Basic Income and socialism is great for establishing a foundation that people can rely upon, but it sucks at offering things that make people unique. Capitalism is terrific at making people into unique individuals, but is horrific at ensuring their basic wellbeing.

As such, socialism should be used to ensure everyone has decent necessities and stability, while money should solely be used for luxury things. Everyone gets a house, but you use money for a bigger house. A basic car is free, but a bigger gas guzzler has to be bought. If the basic car is damaged, just trade it in to the government and get a fresh one - the government keeps the old universal car, either repairing it back into service or scrapping it. Healthcare for most things are free, but cosmetic beautification like butt lifts, cost money. Ozempic is free, because less obesity is good across the board. And so on.

IMO, free basic goods and services would also help regulate the pricing of capitalist luxury, because they are competing against free. That makes it harder to rip off society. Also, if everyone has what they need, they aren't blackmailed into working for bad corporations or breaking themselves to survive. Work, is just to earn money for cool things in life, but isn't strictly required. People work by choice.

This translates into people pursuing aspects of life that best suit them - be it a specific career, helping their family, participating in the community, or creating arts. This is more optimal than the forced work of capitalism.