It does not have to be. I take a Georgist view of the topic which when applied to UBI can create system based on Commons Rent.
Commons Rent would be fees on Natural Occurring Resources things like Extraction of Minerals, Forests, Fish. Fees on EM Spectrum (our current model of "selling" the EM Spectrum needs to end), geosynchronous orbits, air corridor usage (which can be very profitable in the coming age of Autonomous Drones). Pollution fees aka carbon taxes or other such fees.
Included in that would be Land Use Fees, and many other things not listed herein
It does not have to be a "take from rich, give to the poor" situation, it however does change the traditional attitude of natural resources as the marketable private property of the first person to discover them.
No it isn't. Retirement benefits have nothing to do with 'paying in' or 'investing' or some sort of 'fund'.
This is news to those who retire and live on investment income.
Even just maintaining stored retirement wealth depends on this. Think about prices for services when there are large numbers of rich retired people with needs, but few young people willing to provide them.
Retirement is an entitlement pyramid, that means, people pay the government for it to take care of older participants, and by doing so they get entitled into receiving something in proportion to what they paid.
Besides it being a pyramid, a UBI scheme where total received is proportional to total paid wouldn't work either. Yet, none of that means that UBI wouldn't work, those are completely different.