This one seems a serious problem. Home sales too, since sellers know people could make larger mortgage payments.
Is there a good argument for why this will not inevitably transfer much of the money to landowners?
I regularly rent out the guest bedroom in my house. When I do so, I do not run complex formulas to figure out what a particular tenant might be able to afford. I simply look at rents for similar units in the area, and bump it up or down slightly based on the various features and amenities the room has. I don't charge a corporate executive higher rent than I charge a college student. Their ability to pay is not relevant.
You might be thinking "okay, but what if everyone's income went up in an UBI scenario?" Honestly, unless literally all the landlords in a city came together and colluded, you wouldn't see much increase, because we would have the same level of competition we have today.
The market is all the collusion necessary.
> I simply look at rents for similar units in the area
Iterate that and the rents rise until they reach a new, higher global equilibrium.
? Do you think these rents are set by God or something? The fact that it's a dynamic system doesn't change the fact that the equilibrium (and thus prices) are set through supply and demand.
People receive UBI, more people are able to move out and buy/rent an apartment or house, landlords are getting more applicants and apartment buildings start filling up, some landlords increase price to compensate for increased demand, average rent for an area goes up, the rest of the landlords increase their prices to match the market