That's why, for instance, the Fed is currently raising interest rates. They want to 'gently' brake the economy (while trying to avoid breaking it) such that people stop spending so much money, and inflation cools down. By contrast countless countries have tried to solve inflation by simply naively tackling the problem.
People don't have enough money to buy chicken? Well obviously we just need to give them more money! And that's how you get Zimbabwe. [1] Alternatively, another direct approach is to say "Okay - companies may no longer charge more than $0.50 for a chicken." That's how you get Venezuela. [2]
[1] - https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/may/14/zimbabwe-trill...
[2] - https://www.reuters.com/news/picture/venezuelas-empty-shelve...
> So tax $1.10 for every $1 redistributed
I would say this is also mostly innacurate. Velocity is one factor, but may or may not be the driving factor depending on circumstances.
If a global pandemic shuts down most of the manufacturing cities in China, and a war in Ukraine takes Russian energy and Ukrainian grain out of the supply equation, then the velocity of money is irrelevant compared to supply constraints.
So while one could nitpick some points about the specifics of government actions as relation to monetary supply, even if we take all of your points for granted - there would almost certainly be inflation proportional to the amount given. The only way there would be no inflation is if this action didn't increase monetary velocity.