UBI is implemented tomorrow. Every citizen gets $1000 per month.
Landlord now knows you have an extra $1000 that you never had before. Why wouldn’t the landlord raise prices?
Now you have an extra $1000 a month and instead of eating rice and beans for a few meals you go out to a restaurant. The restaurant owners know everyone is eating out more so why not raise prices and maximize shareholder profit as always. The restaurant/corporation is on TV saying, “well, demand increased and it is a simple Economic principle that prices had to increase. There’s nothing we can do about it”.
Your state/country has toll roads. The state needs money for its deficit. UBI is implemented and the state/country sees it as the perfect time to incrementally raise toll prices.
Next thing you know UBI is effectively gone because everything costs more and billionaires keep hitting higher and higher all time net worth records.
You’re not solving the problem of the UBI being eaten up by what they already have to pay for as everything just gets a bit more pricy.
You have this VERY strange idea of what a landlord is. A landlord’s needs are already met, that’s why he has multiple properties.
… and it’s not a trivial difference. A Stimulus check is NOT UBI, it’s limited in who gets it, and it’s a one time payment, so it’s quickly spent whether on needs or wants, and then it’s gone. UBI is a ongoing payment meaning that the market will adjust to the new money everyone has every month. So you can’t compare the two. well you can but you just look foolish… which you’re doubling down on.
It’s not pedantic to point out that one time payments and continual payments change everything in different ways, but absolutely change the market in different ways… If you think that you might need to go back to school and get a basic economics class.