Leaving the last part out, UBI may have been proposed to counter inequality, but has likely been considered for implementation because of excessive and spreading indebtedness and the prospect of secular stagnation. As usual, those making the decisions will likely not consider as feasible or desirable overturning the system.

In my opinion, the source of having value entrenched in assets, which is remote trade among strangers, cannot be managed by wishing for “taking back” public ownership of assets: the power to decide increasingly resides with those controlling remote commerce (or you wait for suitable historical circumstances and, even if achieved, it could later revert to the former or some other oligarchy). The answer cannot be “negative”, as in “taking back” ownership, control etc; it has to be “positive”, as in “building” something new: e.g., establishing public infrastructure for remote commerce…

What’s the historical or cultural evidence that people behave the way you seem to imply?

Having disagreed with your arguments, I’d like to broadly agree with your conclusions: we should in any case be giving genuine controlling stakes to everyone, distributing power, and after the distribution of power will follow more equal distribution of money. But how is that going to happen? Benevolent companies, just doing what they ethically “should” be doing?

Yes, I absolutely agree, we (that’s us, you and me, those who find themselves with the privilege of some time and resource to think) should be doing what we can to encourage and support people to start their own worker-owned enterprises, and to make them out-compete their shareholder-owned competitors. But what better start for that than UBI? What better, in fact, than to accept a UBI under the kind of pretence that you suggest is in the interests of the stakeholders in the status quo, and use it for exactly the opposing ends?

UBI coupled with a simplified high flat income tax to fund it is still the best way to add negative feedback to counter the “it takes money to make money” positive feedback that makes the rich richer and the poor poorer.

However, we also need things like national medical services and disability insurance to share health and accident risks fairly.

We also really need some way to deal with company competition, cooperation, colusion, and monopolies in markets.

The objective and result of successful competition is a monopoly. How do we prevent that from happening to keep the efficiencies of competition? What if the industry really is more efficient as a monopoly (and i belive things like Uber are)? Should they be nationalised? What about global monopolies?

These are hard questions too, but they are not the questions that UBI is the answer to.