One of the proposed advantages of BI is its simplicity (which among other things means few loopholes and lower enforcement overhead). The point the poster you quote is making is that no tax code will remain simple for very long.

In fact you support that point. Many of the complexities we have now come from adding "just one more feature" to the tax code, until we end up with something so complex that there is an entire industry built up around paying taxes.

If he said "In exchange for supporting inner-city teachers, we will be indirectly subsidizing H&R Block to the tune of $2B" you might ponder whether or not it's worth it.

Why not? If you get BI out of any political process, you already had a majority in support of the simplification. It just requires vigilance, which our current track record for is terrible, but any economic system or any political process requires vigilance, and a BI isn't any different.

It is true that over the entire history of the United States, the American public has proven itself apathetic to the abuses of their politicians, but that is a cultural problem that needs to be solved regardless of having a basic income or not.

They already do. Working in an inner-city can substantially reduce your college loans as a teacher, especially if you were getting something higher, like an ED.D. (doctorate in education)

Substantially getting closer to zero assets is not really what I call society valuing education - but that is not your point. My point, though, was this: it turns out it's possible to provide incentives to people without manipulating a BI scheme - you just actually pay people money, like, you know, income from work they're performing. So there is no reason to assume that introduction of a basic income should be opposed because it would introduce unmanageable complexity as well, especially given that it would most certainly eliminate far more complexity.