Bunch of research on this, and while it does lead to some inflation, so long as competition is acting on the market only a small percentage goes on this.

It would, leading to more resources going towards producing those goods. A UBI is price signal indicating the needs no/low income people matter.

Maybe it would be too politically unpopular, lead to too much spending on vices, or some other issue, but inflation shouldn't be a concern unless those particular goods are of a fixed quantity over the long term.

It would still compress the distribution wouldn't it?

Imagine UBI of $490k per day (I'm using silly numbers to prevent silly arguments) while poor people are previously earning $10k per day and rich people are earning $510k per day. That is rich people earning 51 times as much as poor people and (regardless of inflation) getting 51 times as much stuff. After the UBI the rich get only 2 times as much stuff as the poor. There will be a redistribution of stuff, the exact amounts are hard to calculate, but if it doesn't crash the economy, rich people will have less than before and poor people will have more, even if the prices are higher on average because there's more money.

Radical concept: you could provide UBI in the form of housing, food and transportation

one of the solutions that they put forward in combination with UBI is LVT. When LVT is implemented, it is likely that those three things will not get more expensive relative to income even with a UBI. Let me know if you want me to explain why.

>that providing UBI is just going to lead to inflation of rent, food, and transportation

Please tell me what's different than what I am seeing right now without UBI?

Proponents of UBI usually also suggest countermeasures to the (real) issues you pointed out.

Things now are completely different than 5 years ago /s