If you check my post history everywhere, I'm pretty anti-UBI. But the reasons you pitched are both problematic to me.

You "A" point... I don't like capitalism, but when there isn't a monopoly, increased customer-base doesn't have the effect you're thinking without scarcity. More people able to afford more means more businesses can compete for business. The price increases would come from paying for the increased worker leverage, and those wouldn't be drastic.

The opposite effect is true in some sectors. Studies suggest (consistently) that UBI cause so-called "wealth-flight", which reduces the value of housing and reduces the cost of living... But also reduces quality of life by reducing availability of things. The thing is, a little bit of socialism would counteract wealth-flight, as would a situation where the wealth is not in a position to leave freely.

Your "2" point is false. There are a lot of MAJOR cons to UBI, but studies suggest UBI would have a positive effect on housing affordability and worker leverage. Other than healthcare, your concerns don't seem to match the models and the studies. My add-on concern, however, is addiction. Poverty starvation isn't a risk under most UBI plans, but addict starvation still is.

When "what can I afford to pay" is one of the dominant market forces on anything but luxury, capitalism becomes dangerously fragile and businesses know it. They want to maximize profit, but they do so against demand and competition.

And none of that assumes prices would inflate the way they absolutely will

Most economists don't think UBI would cause all that much inflation. Increasing a customer-base is not the same as increasing demand. There's no addition of scarcity. Food prices don't go up if we don't run out of food - and we have so much food going to waste that isn't going to happen. Same with housing and rent. The question isn't "how much can the sucker afford to pay me", it's "how much can we get for this?". Affordability is only one factor in that, and generally considered a "problem" to all parties when that factor applies. So long as businesses are not MORE consolidated (see above UBI concerns) prices are still market-driven - driven by competition and acceptability.

It's valid to not LIKE capitalism. I hate it. But we should still understand it before criticizing things.

The cost of college will steadily increase by about the amount kids are expected to have been able to save by the time they get there

This is simply not factual. One thing people miss is that college profit margins have been on a slow decline (and in the single-digits since 2016). They're NOT charging more based on how much they think they can sucker out of people. They're charging what they do based on the friction of "making enough money to thrive" and "charging low enough that people are willing to come here". Yes, cost of college might go up slightly, but not in the way you're talking. Again, the issue is that "affordability" is a terrible market force and rarely the one these types of businesses care about.

UBI is just a ticket to absolute dependency on a government check for 99% of Americans, and less financial freedom

There is no study or model that says UBI will give us LESS financial freedom. The real argument is that it won't give more financial freedom to most Americans, and the cost is prohibitive for that limited gain.

Address the actual problems, don’t just slap a half baked bandaid on it

Short of "no questions asked unemployment benefits for life", there aren't really any solutions to many of the problems on the table. Ultimately, all Americans, all humans, deserve a life of all necessities AND some luxuries.

At this time, nobody is seriousliy trying to solve for luxuries except UBI, and nobody is seriously trying to solve for organic worker-leverage except UBI (unions will never be the full answer).