You don't have to give it to everyone.
I live in a low income neighborhood - you can clearly see the difference in generational poverty and how help is needed.
You also can fix the problem by making sure that corporations like Walmart do not rely on their employees getting foodstamps as part of their income as a business model. It is a very unlevel playing field when entire cities are funding the "low prices".
Then it's not a basic income. Giving it to everyone, period, is the defining characteristic of a basic income, and what makes it different than welfare.
Proponents believe it to be a superior model because it eliminates a lot of beaurocracy, bad incentives and paternalistic structures that communicate to poor people that they're inferior and might as well not even try to improve themselves.
It's a nice idea, but it's not a good idea.
> Meanwhile, that money has to come from somewhere and it will come out in the form of taxes.
These two statements are contradictory. If it comes from taxes, it's not "printed" money and thus does not directly lead to inflation - unless it's through increased spending, in which case it means increased consumption and thus a growing economy.
Prices for basic necessities such as food and housing would rise, causing an increase in inflation. Meanwhile, spending for luxuries would see a contraction as additional tax burdens shrink discretionary spending.
The net effect is to shrink the middle class, as I explained.
Only if previously a significant portion of people could not afford basic necessities at all and/or it's impossible to produce more of those basic necessities. Both of these seem rather dubious.
> The net effect is to shrink the middle class, as I explained.
You didn't explain anything, you made a bunch of predictions.
And yes, the tax structure would have to change as well.
It would be a massive net increase in spending and it's not even remotely tenable without changing the tax structure specifically to claw the basic income itself back from most of the recipients.