The vast array of problems that affect lower to middle income families due to huge increases in the prices of health care, education, and housing that happened at the same time there was a break in the link between worker productivity and wages aren't going to go away for $1,000/month.
You should really look in to what relative and absolute mean and then go back to the drawing board, because your thinking here is shoddy. The poor are hit harder by consumption taxes (especially in a state like Kansas that taxes groceries) because the poor have much less discretionary spending. Their consumption spending is to live and all taxes on that basic survival consumption squeezes them much more REALTIVELY than a guy deciding whether to add the Bose surround sound option on his new truck. Your bullshit about how the VAT will affect rich more on an "absolute basis" (because they consume more) and benefit the poor more on a relative basis (because they are desparate? lol!) gave me a heads up that you were absolutely the kind of person for whom this scheme is designed to impress.
The Freedom Benefit will absolutely have an impact on housing without any push for supply side interventions. Landlords will literally go rent-seeking in this environment. Look at BAH rate setting in communities surrounding military bases and see what happens to rents for both military and civilian. Without major interventions to increase the supply of housing, this problem will worsen.
As for your ideas about privatizing Social Security, I rest my case. The whole idea is simply a stalking horse for cutting all other benefits and just claiming that it is a UBI, which it isn't.
They might not go away for $1000/month, but it is certainly a start. There are lots of issues to solve with healthcare, but the Freedom Dividend doesn't preclude any of them. Housing issues are largely a local thing. Not everywhere in the country is having problems with housing. It is largely a zoning and NIMBY problem in select areas. As far as education goes, there is far too much higher education (college) that is being undertaken in this country. It is a drain on our economy and people's lives. I would recommend reading
The Case Against Education.
I'll try and break it down with numbers so that you can see how a VAT with the Freedom Dividend (basically a per capita rebate) would make low income households better off. I am quite confident I understand relative and absolute. The only confusion is not on my part and it has nothing to do with being desperate.
Let's say there is a household of two parents and two children whose household income is $25,000 and they spend 100% of their income. With a 10% VAT this means $2500 of their spending will be for the VAT and their burden for the VAT is 10% of income.
Let's say there is another household (two parents and two children) with an income of $800,000 and they spend 60% of their income. With a VAT of 10% this means $48,000 of their spending will be for the VAT and their burden for the VAT is 6% of their income.
For the tax part, the lower income household is paying a higher relative share of their income (10% vs 6%), but the higher income household is paying a higher absolute amount ($48,000 vs $2500).
Then comes the per capita rebate part (Freedom Dividend). Each household receives $24,000 from the Freedom Dividend ($12,000 per adult). Each household is receiving the same absolute amount for the Freedom Dividend ($24,000 vs $24,000). However, the $24,000 represents 96% of the lower income household's income and 3% of the higher income household's income. The lower income household is better off on a relative basis (96% vs 3%).
I will admit that the Freedom Dividend is designed to appeal to people like me (PhDs in Economics) and perhaps not you.
You're going to have to describe more about BAH rate setting and communities that surround bases. I looked for journal articles on this and could not find any. I can imagine that when you have an influx of people come to a military base, that is going to increase demand and cause rents to go up. Eventually, the housing supply will increase, though, and moderate rents if markets are allowed to function. Look at Manhattan, KS, for example, rents are stable (and decreasing in some cases) now that there has been a large increase in the supply of housing.
I personally don't think trying to figure out ways to make the wealth redistribution that occurs in this country more efficient and less-stigmatizing to be a bad thing. Also, I believe looking at ways to keep Social Security viable for the next 30 years is a good thing.