> Giving everyone $10K/year would just inflate prices until $10K was the zero baseline for income.

That doesn't make sense. A downward redistribution (which UBI is) is going to inflate prices of goods with disproportionate low-end demand and deflate those with disproportionate high-end demand somewhat, but in any plausible scenario it will still (before considering any effects of reactive production shifts) increase the buying power on the low end and decrease it on the high end, even after the effects of price level changes.

> Luckily, [[new research]] on a program in Mexico gives us a real-world test case for this idea. And it strongly suggests that giving out cash doesn’t cause inflation — or if it does, the effects are very, very mild.

* https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/20/16256240/m...

> If, however, you funded a UBI with graduated taxation, you would effectively be redistributing wealth from the wealthiest to the population in general. Depending on the tax code, people somewhere in the middle of the scale would receive about the same amount in UBI as they pay in tax increases.

* https://www.quora.com/Wont-a-universal-basic-income-raise-in...

For the second article, he notes that if UBI is done via printing money, then it could.

If you tie the amount distributed to inflation like the Social Security does in the US then it would auto adjust.

I'd expect the opposite. Giving a UBI would suddenly give the poorest people a voice in the market, and industries that are currently bottom-feeder would become inclusive and thriving. Eg payday loans becomes small business loans. Dollar stores get better fresh produce, etc.