Thanks for reading and the comment. Of course you are correct, and they do not. The interconnectedness of our economy ensures that just about any purchase could be tied to some large digital economy player and increase their profits either directly or indirectly. Even a donation to charity or putting money into a savings account could be shown to have some profit advantage for these large companies given the depth and scope of their reach. That said it does not change my opinion about the benefits of UBI outweighing the negatives. Even if all of the profits went to the ultra rich (and some have argued they do or eventually will) the benefits for the receiver of UBI are real, tangible, and felt. As I said in the post the ultra rich are going to keep getting richer anyway and the alternatives mentioned have no chance of happening in the short to medium term, and virtually no chance of happening in the long term. This is in contrast to UBI which does have a chance, and it is primarily because of the perceived benefit to the wealthy (who control all the levers of power) that it does. With our without UBI the wealthy will continue to get theirs but without UBI everyone else will continue to get nothing. I understand the desire to take a principled stand and say no this wholly inadequate band aid approach that is really a give-away to the already rich in disguise. However, in this case I would suggest the practical give way to the principled as something is better than nothing. That does not mean we should give up trying on other possible approaches and solutions but it does mean our energies would be better served fighting for those than fighting against something which could help a lot of people that desperately need it.