Say you have $0 income. A new policy comes into force that gives you $500 a month basic income. Even if prices increased 10x you would still be better off than before. Prices would have to increase an infinite amount for you to be able to afford the same amount of goods as before (zero). Even if you had $500/month before, you'd still be better off as long as prices don't increase more than 2x.
I don't know enough to advocate for or against basic income, but I'm pretty sure that it doesn't amount to a no-op. Whether it's done through printing money or taxation, it ends up redistributing wealth from wealthier people to poorer people.
In the case of printing money, the resulting inflation would cause everyone's money to be worth less: rich people, having more money, would end up losing more. In the case of taxation, the redistribution is more direct.
Sure, but if hyper-inflation results in that USD 500 buying me a loaf of bread each month, I think 'better off than before' is kindof irrelevant. There have to be tangible benefits to the recipient over and above, say income from finding pennies in the street...
It is assumed that someone without a job will still get some money in the form of unemployment benefits, so their buying power won't be $0. Therefore, your premise is wrong.
I don't know enough to advocate for or against basic income, but I'm pretty sure that it doesn't amount to a no-op. Whether it's done through printing money or taxation, it ends up redistributing wealth from wealthier people to poorer people.
In the case of printing money, the resulting inflation would cause everyone's money to be worth less: rich people, having more money, would end up losing more. In the case of taxation, the redistribution is more direct.