> Actually, if a state does any welfare, it probably has this problem already. Basic income offers significant reductions in those inefficiencies by simplifying the process of selecting eligible people (and retiring the required bureaucracy).
Never been proven that UBI would reduce the inefficiencies. The State find ways to be inefficient even when it's not supposed to be.
> That you have under every system, from despotism to socialism to capitalist democracy.
Nope, if you did not have a Big government doing wealth redistribution in the first place you would not have much money being lost in such transactions because the flow would be very limited. Look at the US Federal budget, how humongous it has become.
> Inequality will be a false problem when the bottom level of society won't be starving to death or due to lack of basic health care.
Oh come on. Mass starvation is a thing of the past, check Wikipedia, the last starvations happened more than 30 years ago and the only recent ones are due to conflicts mainly - poor people do not die anymore of hunger anywhere - we have large amounts of excess food, even in the poorest places of the world, like the countrysides of China.
> Again, basic income proposes turning inequality into a non-problem by securing a decent, humane minimum level for everyone.
The advocates of UBI fail to understand that by raising the minimum earnings to everyone, you will probably make prices go up everywhere (increased taxes + prices adjustments based on purchasing power) so it won't result in any meaningful difference.