Even if it's rent money, food money, water money, heating money, condom money, beer money that is given to somebody for free it still must be taken from somebody else. Even if we all get this minimum income, not all of us pay for it. And this is called wealth redistribution.
I agree with you, but this already happens in all Western nations to some degree or another:
https://www.oecd.org/social/expenditure.htmThe OECD average is 20% of a country's GDP is spent on social welfare. USA is slightly below this at 18.7%, but there are some European countries which spend much higher amounts on welfare spending.
If UBI is going to reduce the amount spent on welfare because of the reason I mentioned above (I'm not saying it
will, but
if it does) then surely it's worth looking in to?
Exactly, that's the discussion we need to be having. UBI is intended to replace other welfare programs that are riddled with bureaucracy and are highly inefficient. Social Security spends an incredible amount of money on lengthy application/interview processes, regular case reviews, and fraud investigations, most of which would be eliminated if replaced with UBI.
We also need to consider that minimal income will deter crime and reduce healthcare costs as it will keep people from being completely destitute and homeless. I don't know where other posters live, but the homeless problem is accelerating badly in the US. People can turn a blind eye to it and say they don't want to give these people handouts, but they will end up paying for it one way or another through the healthcare and prison systems funded by their tax dollars.