You have to consider the net redistributive effects, not the top line number. A large amount of that spending ends up back as tax revenue because it gets taxed

You have to consider the net redistributive effects, not the top line number. A large amount of that spending ends up back as tax revenue because it gets taxed away from people who don't need it. Or to put it more simply, suppose I give both a poor person and a rich person $1000, then I say later on I will see how rich you are and collect that $1000 back if you're above a certain threshold. I thus collect the $1000 back from the rich person, but the poor person keeps theirs. In such a scenario, you wouldn't say that I redistributed $2000 worth of wealth. The net redistribution ended up being $1000. Yang's team has studies on the precise amount of new redistribution they expect their UBI would entail, and it's considerably less than 14% of GDP. (They also project that the UBI would generate saving elsewhere, which contributes to the lower net redistribution.)