No, it's simply predicated on the idea of diminishing marginal utility. The only reason it's more of a potential problem for the poor than the rich is because a concave function has a negative second derivative. Seriously, make up any concave function and compute marginal utility before and after a basic income for the rich and poor alike.
It's also a concern given that the poor already do sit on their ass and eat mcdonald's all day. Most poor don't work and aren't looking for a job.
Most of those who are either lazy or unable to find work are poor. Many who are unable to find work are in that situation through no fault of their own.
I suspect you are referring to my use of the words "sit on their ass and eat mcdonald's all day"? Read Rayiner's post - the phrasing is his. He just uses it as reducto ad absurdum, which is not actually so absurd.
It's also a concern given that the poor already do sit on their ass and eat mcdonald's all day. Most poor don't work and aren't looking for a job.