Unless each tier goes up in value by an amount proportionate to what landlords expect the wind-fall to be. The effect of increased rent isn't just going to be at the lowest income but will happen as each landlord acts accordingly.
Landlord don't have to play by some fair rules of economics or something. Instead they optimize their income in the obvious fashion. Rents would rise in unit up to the level where taxes begin reduce total incomes (those would be mostly home and condo owners at that point I assume).
No, that's literally exactly what I addressed. Unless, by “the wind-fall” you mean the amount extractable not the amount of the net benefit to their current tenant base, in which cases yes, that's exactly what I addressed as to why it is not the full net benefit and why those who are not beneficiaries before considering induced rent increases are generally going to be net beneficiaries after such increases, too.
> Landlord don't have to play by some fair rules of economics or something.
Landlords aren't magically immune from economics, either.
The amount extractable is pretty much the net benefit. Maybe a little less but not that much (ie, your argument above is faulty). This is because landlords can raise prices immediately. the vast majority of tenants can't just jump to other apartment on a moments notice AND because there simply aren't a bunch higher-priced apartment available - these apartments are occupied by already by higher income tenant.
No, it's not.
> This is because landlords can raise prices immediately.
Assuming the absence of all of lease contracts and rent control and legal notice period for rent increase (e.g., California’s 30-day notice for an increase that would bring the rent to more than 10% higher than the lowest rent charged in the preceding 12 months) and available competitive units, sure.
> there simply aren't a bunch higher-priced apartment available - these apartments are occupied by already by higher income tenant.
Sure there are, except in the tightest markets. It's true that housing supply can be a problem, particularly in done local markets, but that's an issue with it without UBI.
A compression of income distribution (raising the floor/median without changing mean) means that low-income residents are more likely able to afford to rent units at a tier higher if the price for value not of low-income apartments gets worse (now, if this happens a lot in practice, it drives up prices at the next tier, but the fact that it can itself is a constraint on price increases in the bottom tier.)
And this can be interated at each level until you reach the tiers with net payers, and realize that, yes, their decline in demand,even though it isn't directly the same units as the lowest tier, has enough effect on the lowest tier, through a chain of incone tiers with overlapping markets, even though the top tier doesn't overlap with the bottom.