Possibly, but depending on the level of budgetary entrenchment it would prove difficult for some governments. In any case, a staged roll-out is more likely to succeed, with many hurdles along the way.

It's worth repeating that doing nothing increases overall societal costs if large parts of the population become unemployed, whether due to lower statewide income taxes, increased welfare costs, people resorting to grey collar work, and other secondary effects from increased displacement (lower consumer spending, rentals sitting empty, health epidemics, increased crime, etc.). UBI does not have to be a blanket instrument either: rather than income, we can focus on making certain goods and services universally available, such as access to food surpluses that would otherwise be overturned or basic internet access to enable people to remain connected without expensive contracts.

A solution may even exist beyond taxation: making reschooling and job pivoting more accepted within industry, lowering admission costs to tertiary education, or guaranteeing placement of employees when let go on account of automation or cost-cutting. What way the pendulum will swing remains to be seen.

Those corporations still want access to the US / EU / etc. customers so if they move elsewhere to dodge taxes you need to increase tariffs to compensate or deny them access to the market entirely. Those businesses are not irreplacable and they are worth nothing without customers.

No, of course they wouldn't. A politician cares far more about protecting their own wealth than increasing the size of some government department budget.

They don't get to keep the tax revenue you know.