Also, why do we care to "benefit businesses long-term" - don't we want to benefit all of society, not just businesses?
What's good for society is good for business. The inverse isn't always true, but in the long-term businesses do benefit from access to a stable, healthy and well-educated workforce. Gender equality means more workers and more consumers for your products, racial equality means more workers and more consumers for your products, support for transgender means etc.
It's all well and good to talk about the moral imperative for these things, I'm on board with that, but that's just preaching to the converted. The morality of support for the unemployed, preventing climate change, gender/racial equality, free education, free healthcare, is all self-evident to people who agree with it, and laughable to those who don't, and you'll never win an argument on the morals alone.
You need to tie it to a pitch long-term success to sell it to the unconvinced. After a thing is normalised it'll be seen as moral, but you can't get it normalised by arguing it's moral. Getting it in and then normalised is how you change the culture.
Those sound good - and I like the goals. But "tax the right to give free education" doesn't give you free education - it gives you "education funded by the rich." Without cultural changes to make the rich happy to do this, it's likely going to breed resentment and class-divide issues.
Which then leads to this, the wealthy benefit from access to a well-educated workforce. The industrial revolution was driven in-part by the sudden access to a basically educated workforce, and it's still true for businesses that the better educated your workforce and consumers the more products can be developed and consumed. Can't include instruction magazines to people who can't read, can't sell a mobile phone to people with no IT skills. There's no upper limit on this, the more educated a person is the wider a pool of potential products they can consume. The more educated an employee is, the wider a range of tools they can wield. There may need to be a friendly reminder of this fact every now and then.
Also - "allow for a more agile workforce capable of transitioning between careers..." sounds like a great goal, but what does that mean? What would this look like? Does it mean UBI so you can just quit your job and go to school and learn something else? Should society fund "career students"? These are the questions that are less obvious to address. Or do you just say "yeah, there are enough people that aren't just going to live off UBI that it will all work, so we can tolerate the portion of people who do just sit there without producing anything."
For that's what ultimate communism says - that the portion of society that does produce, does it efficiently enough that it can support the "non productive" (injured, young, those that choose to do nothing) in a resource-efficient manner, in a way that doesn't collapse due to disrepair.
Yes on both accounts. Allow people who want to go back to education to do so free of charge, maybe a limit on how often (like you can't go back for free for 5 years or something) but I find that unlikely to be needed. It's already true that people who aren't trying to learn get kicked off their course, and the people who are trying are unlikely to just keep at that indefinitely instead of moving into a career around their topic of study.
Offer financial incentives for businesses to encourage them to hire and train rather than always look for prior experience (which again, makes future efforts to find those with prior experience easier). I'm fine with some gentle pressure for employment for those capable of working until we hit that point of more job seekers than job positions, but morally it seems odd that there are people who would rather the bottom 5% who need support not get it than the top 5% who do not need support do get it. The balance will never be perfect, I'd rather overshoot the coverage than undershoot.