That depends on where the higher taxes kick in. For a lot of people it would be getting some of your own money back, like a tax refund. This makes UBI seem both much more expensive and a much higher benefit than it actually is.

For the combination of higher taxes and UBI you need to look at how the net effects vary across the population. This isn't easy to do without understanding the taxes, and those tend not to be emphasized. (Yang's proposal has a big hole in it; the taxes aren't enough and he relies on economic growth to make up for it, which is a common dodge many politicians use for big proposals. Not that economic growth can't happen but it's not that predictable for something that hasn't been tried. You don't know when the next recession will be.)

In a zero-sum redistribution scheme intended to reduce inequality, if you're of average or high income you might not directly benefit at all, but that's no reason not to support it. You buy fire insurance for the worst case, not because you plan to make money at it in the average case. You get security from it that's not shown in the estimated average payoff.

If nobody has a job because they've all been automated away and you're just getting 10K/yr from the Government then your median income is.... 10K/yr not 60K + 10K.

His point is that given that half of the population makes less than $60k/year, $10k/year would be a 16% or more income boost for those people.

The statement was about the people who are no longer earning other income because their labor is not needed.

When people say "household" in these cases how many (adults) is it? 1? 2? More?