> How do you prevent UBI being captured by landlords in rent

Progressive taxation + UBI compresses income ranges, rather than adding it, there’s not really anything to capture unless the market was sharply segmented before and after the change, its dubious even before UBI and to the extent “lumpiness” in income distribution might allow market segmentation, UBI reduces that and weakens capture opportunities.

Competition, both between similar units in similar places and between alternative arrangements. Maybe having a roommate or living with my parents isn't worth it for $X/mo but it is for $2X. Certainly it is for some X for most people. Also the presence of a UBI directly increases "housing" in the sense we mean. We don't really have any shortage of housing - we have a shortage of attractive housing, where a huge part of "attractive" is "sufficiently close to sufficient income" and a UBI makes more things sufficient. And for those in the cities, by elevating the bottom of the income distribution we make developers more interested in building the affordable housing we need.

Will some of the increase still be captured? Probably. More in some areas than others. Will we be right back to square one (or worse)? I really don't think so.

In the current US system, much of income is captured by rent and health insurance, regardless of where it comes from.

But I share the same concern that UBI would immediately be added to rent.

And that it might combine poorly with existing perverse incentives:

"Across the nation, landlords with units in poor neighborhoods average nearly $100 a month in net profit, compared to about $50 in affluent neighborhoods, and just $3 in middle-class areas."

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-21/housing-e...