> I don't see the connection between inflation and inequality. Inflation is relative currency growth vs true economy size and productivity. If you implement UB

> I don't see the connection between inflation and inequality. Inflation is relative currency growth vs true economy size and productivity. If you implement UBI, you're essentially also implementing a minimum wage, since companies will have to pay significantly more than UBI. Rather than accept a cut in their own pay to pay workers more, executives will raise the price of goods and services. This effect, across the economy causes inflation. So if you don't find a way to prevent executives raising their own pay to maintain inequality, you get inflation any time you give money to the poor. Economic conservatives tend to overstate this problem, in my opinion--there's nothing preventing you from just raising the UBI proportional to inflation. But historically, minimum wage hasn't tracked inflation, and I worry that UBI would suffer the same problem. > For one humans are tricky in that they don't just lie down and accept the laws you want that go against what they want and instead undermine and loophole it in ingenius ways. Trivially that would encourage "nesting doll tiered" subsidary companies and contractors to bypass the limits. This problem exists in any solution, including all the ones that already exist. It should be addressed, but I don't think that's a reasonable criticism of any solution if it applies to all of them. > Second the high end of income wouldn't even be affected as they make their money largely from investments not salary or wages. Even if they got the seed for investments from their high salaries - like every retired athlete who managed to stay rich and even get richer after endorsements dried up. Yes, we'd have to find a way to treat investment income as equivalent to pay in order for this to work.