In some models I've seen, you essentially devalue your currency by half in order to achieve this.

Where your gdp, national and state tax revenue exceeds the average cost of living you get a fair assessment of the impact. So what, the states have 318 million people, 17 trillion gdp, 3 quadrillion or something redic in state taxes and goodness knows how much in fed. You get 15k a year to do whatever you want with.. You do the match, pretty sure that's all the dollars for every man, woman and child. Eerily so. So yeah it doesn't work that way.

Also to help facilitate the process, I'm pretty sure you find more public industry development for the necessities like food production, housing, infrastructure and manufacturing.

Make all those things, the things people need indefinitely in order to survive, the things they know they are entitled to. When companies sell food products at 1000x the cost to create, there's an opportunity.

When you can use free resources to produce enough food for your population and have more abandoned housing than homeless, you don't need basic income to get people to believe that these things shouldn't be issues and in many cases, legislation should exist to solve these problems.

I am of the mind though that private enterprise should run the country and the government should be small so I see no problem in someone making as much as they can for them and theirs but you do need to draw a line, I think, when it comes to survival for your fellow man.

Medical treatment and medicine is the worst offender of this.

Realistically this could be what happens during a crisis, a reduced population and an abundance of resources and manpower with an explosion in manufacturing techniques, automation and AI. If we have a major war in our lifetime, there would be a good case to implement this kind of solution on a global level.