It's complicated. There are a couple of directions to examine this question. First, from the supply of money and how it is used. While everyone will have mor

It's complicated. There are a couple of directions to examine this question. First, from the supply of money and how it is used. While everyone will have more money, that doesn't necessarily mean that each unit of currency will be worth much less. One characteristic of being in poverty is needing things that you cannot purchase. If you need $1000 worth of stuff and you are given $100 or even $900 you are paying not only the nominal price of those goods but a very real and a very felt opportunity cost of not getting some other needed good. IOW, it makes sense to be nearly as careful and frugal as it was before you got your windfall. Once you get past the threshold of 'needed' items and into 'important' items the calculus changes a bit and when you move from that to 'nice to have' it changes even further. It is easy to imagine inflation running a bit wild if a community of middle class people were all given a million dollars, for example. Look at the gold rush or the recent oil boom towns. From the other direction, the demand for money and time from this population. Sellers who know that a population has an influx in cash might try to demand more for it. They will have trouble because that extra cash still mean a lot as examined above and they will need to compete with others for that cash. Where things will really change are people that don't need cash from this population but time in the form of labor. People who employ the poverty stricken have a distinct advantage that other employers do not have in their negotiations -- the other party is bargaining for their life. If they don't work this week they may not eat next week. This causes those in poverty to sell their time for a loss as long as that loss is not as much as the loss they'd see if they didn't work at all...and it is hard to imagine a greater loss than the pain and risk of death of starvation, homelessness, or lack of medical care for yourself and your family. Under basic income, however, this calculus changes dramatically. Suddenly these people have a much stronger bargaining position. They are now negotiating for gain rather than loss. Employers now have to entice them to work. They have to pay their employees more than their time is worth to them for other activities like recreation or education or spending time with their family. It is not all bad; thanks to basic income it is easier to reach the gain vs. loss threshold but it will likely be more than what they can get away with when the alternative for the employee is pain or death. These employers might eat some of this cost but some will likely be pushed onto their customers. Some jobs might be lost altogether because people are not willing to pay enough for a service to make up the difference. These tend to be low value add jobs since they were, in effect, subsidized by desperation. These three effects will lead to some inflation but, unless basic income can push people from 'need to have' to 'nice to have', a big jump, I think it will be held in check.