And as almost all will agree, that's not only logically wrong, it's also morally wrong.
I don't need basic income. If I received free money that I don't need, I might decide to double my cheese consumption. If many people like me do this, then the price of cheese will go up, hurting poor people.
Money "you don't need" is an economic absurdity.
The only people who double their cheese consumption are people who really like cheese. And if basic income helps you and others truly express their passion for cheese, more power to you. Poor people will eat something else.
There's something absurd in this argument. No one's going to double their cheese consumption, just because they got money "they don't need", and no one is going to starve because the price of cheese went up.
But also, whatever problem we think we are debating here, it exists with or without basic income.
The argument that "basic needs" prices will rise (which was what my OP gave) because of UBI must be false, since being "basic needs", they already must be provided to anyone anyway.
In any case, even if a big part of the population didn't had access to "basic needs" the argument would be that: "we can't allow them to have those basic needs or else their price will increase to the rest of us". Than that, is morally wrong.
I hope now it is totally clear what I meant above.
But my wishes don't overcome basic supply and demand. Unless there's a lot more goods suddenly being produced, prices will rise if more people want them and can pay for them, which will tend to cancel the benefits of UBI.