To believe otherwise is to fall for the money illusion.
The tax should be returned to the worker who has earned it, not redistributed to another person who expects to consume without producing.
As for whether the entire system of investing materials/capital when a project is risky should be rewarded at all (ostensibly the rich class' job) - mine is a conservative take. It could be rewarded less, certainly (via a wealth tax). Completely removing that mechanism ("money illusion") seems like a recipe for a society where there is little point in taking any risky venture.
Which would then mean they could command more of their own output in competition with the rich and therefore not have to work Friday. The rich would then have to hire those currently without work to do the Friday shift, and those that don't want to work would have to work the Friday shift if they want to eat.
All of which is perfectly fair and reasonable on a quid pro quo basis.
What you want to do is force the current workers to work Friday for nothing, then take that output and give it to even more people who don't want to work for a living - adding to the existing rich who are currently doing that.
That's doubly unfair on the workers.
To stop that unfair extraction we need guaranteed jobs, not guaranteed income.
How would you answer Scott Alexander's arguments against your position, as enunciated in his essay "Basic Income, Not Basic Jobs: Against Hijacking Utopia"[1] ?
[1]: https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/05/16/basic-income-not-basic...