> I'm UBI-curious, but surely inflation would be inevitable if everyone suddenly had $x more disposable income per year?

This does not have to be the case if higher taxes decrease purchasing power for some.

▲

nostrebored 3 hours ago | parent [-]

This does not address the relative purchasing power change on the left of the bell curve.

▲

lotsofpulp 3 hours ago | parent [-]

The whole purpose of UBI is to increase the relative purchasing power on the left of the bell curve.

But inflation (sum total) is a moot point if total supply of dollars for total demand stays the same. Prices might temporarily increase for staples, such as shelter and food, but that should incentivize sellers in the economy to supply more staples, and fewer luxury goods.

The additional supply will eventually bring prices down, but end result is more people have more of the basics.

▲

shahmeern 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I don't think that line of reasoning has worked our particularly well for shelter.

	▲	lotsofpulp 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Just because supply of shelter in certain locales has not kept up with demand for that specific locale, and/or is affected by numerous legalities regarding things like eviction and zoning codes and fire codes and animals, does not mean invalid the theory of higher prices incentivizing sellers to increase supply.