[benjiwengy]

No, a tax on the rental value of land would move the demand curve over to the left. This would reduce both rental incomes and selling prices. ie a reduction in demand. So the rise in rents would be cancelled out by the fall in selling prices. ie No inflation.

Landlords do not currently claim most of peoples disposable incomes. That ratio hasn't, nor would it change because renters get more income via the BI.

Landlords would in fact be keeping a lot less of peoples income once equilibrium has been reached.

There are no difficulties in separating the value of location from that of the buildings. Easy to do. Besides as far as LVT is concerned, its the structure rather than value taxed that is important. But I'd need to write more than I've got time for here to explain why that is.

[_rpd]

Net rental income will remain steady, since landlords will raise the rent to pass along the tax. They may even list it on the lease: "Rent $1000 + UBI tax $400." Everyone will have more money and be able to pay the higher total. The only way the rents can be prevented from rising is instituting price controls.

The percentage of income claimed by landlords will increase slightly ...

before the BI-increase: say $12k rent of $36k income = 33%

after the BI-increase: $17k rent of $41k income = 41%

The only way rents drop is that zoning laws change to allow massive increase in rental space supply, or demand for rental space drops because people are enticed by low rents elsewhere and move. Since zoning laws will change only glacially, if at all, rents less than $(pre-BI rent + new disposal income) will require the Great Universal Basic Income Migration (GUBIM) from urban to exurban and rural areas. The GUBIM is possible, I just think it is vanishingly unlikely.