Firstly, UBI reduces poverty and and income inequality. This is evident in Namibia's UBI program trial, the Basic Incom Grant, where initial poverty levels fell after one year. This particular poverty was measured based on food poverty which fell 76% to 37%, child malnutrition fell from 42% to 10% and household debt (the average fell from 1,215 Naminian dollars to 772 Namibian dollars). Therefore, indicating that UBI has been effective in reducing varying types of poverty, and is also sustainable because it sparked entrepreneurship, therefore indicating a return on interest as GDP may rise cause of the higher quality of enterprise, therefore even if it proves expensive, the reward of it can possibly make up for it

While my opponent makes a good point on cost-push inflation as it'll could erode the purchasing power of the UBI by driving up costs. However, as I mentioned previously, UBI also leads to economic growth as quality of the factors of production ie enterprise improve. The tax revenue post economic growth can be used as government revenue that can enforce price controls that protect consumers ie maximum price that avoid business owners from exploiting the UBI's new found prosperity.

Again, I would like to reiterate my stance on how tax revenue gives the government the budget to be able to put price controls that prevent landlords and shops from charging more. I will explain with an analogy. If the government enforces that a widely consumed essential like rice or beans in a developing nation show cost only $0.50 and rent controls also are capped at $5, landlords and shops don't have a choice but to charge the set prices. Failure to do so they may face fines or closure.