Its universal and the landlord gets UBI too, right? That isn't redistribution, just distribution.

There's way more poor people than rich people. So in aggregate it's redistribution.

Also, the option for some sort of scaled UBI would be great too imo.

Take from the few to give to the vast hordes. No chance that'll go wrong.

Quick question, why do I want to keep producing when I just get taxed to pay for those who refuse to work? So next year you've got one more mouth to feed and a lot less resources to do so.

But it's okay, print more money to give to the last guy working, quadrillions of dollars, and tax him at 99.999999% and redistribute (totally not print, not at all) those inflated dollars to everyone. We'll all be rich!

Why do rich people keep producing now?

Why did the they keep producing in the 50s and 60s with a 90% tax rate?

Because they know that if they don't.. someone else will.. no matter what the tax rate.

Sure, even at 90% you're still only doing the work of nine others, but at seven nines there'll only be a handful of productives in an entire country, each doing the work of millions and collecting only a single share. When collecting UBI pays as well as working to pay into UBI, why would anyone work it?

See the Wikipedia article for basic income experiments.

I'm not going to explain to you why people would work instead of settle for 12k a year.

And your first statement isnt clear how it's correlated to taxes.

That's the theory, but once UBI is a right it'll be easier to demand more than to supplement with a job. The experiments show nothing about the lasting effects of mass UBI. The two main problems that make the experiments meaningless are that they don't impact the whole city, which would clearly drive prices up either making the UBI less useful, or require tying it to a housing-price index which means it'd just go up endlessly, and that the experiments also don't last long enough for these systemic changes.

Further, the UBI experiments don't produce any benefit beyond one-time grants, as seen in other experiments, perhaps even less because the trickle payment doesn't give you the capital to move to find better work or anything.

Lifetime welfare has proven harmful, how will super-welfare be better? If anything has destroyed American cities its welfare ghettos and the malaise and crime that comes with it.