[est31]

The "UBI consumer serfs" already exist in Germany, because the government only pays you benefits if you don't have any property. The moment you start saving up your money, they stop payments and demand you to live from your savings instead.

[chii]

But is that not a good way to encourage people to work and produce goods/services? UBI isn't there so you can live a comfortable life off the taxpayers, but as a safety net for accidents, bad luck and other unfortunates so that they don't die. But once they're back on their feet, they should be capable of restarting their productive life and no longer need social welfare.

[p1necone]

You shouldn't be forced to obliterate your retirement savings because you fell on hard times. Welfare should never be set up in a way that incentivizes people to be financially irresponsible.

[est31]

A better way of encouraging them to work is to not retract the support as quickly as currently done when there is a job. A lot of things are free (like GEZ for example) when you live on social security, but cost money when you have a job. Thus, you might actually be worse off financially. Even if you had 30% more money, is it really worth that small number to get up every morning at 6 am? A better encouragement would be to phase out government support over a longer span of income.

[p1necone]

That's not a UBI then is it? Isn't the point of a UBI to give it to everyone universally regardless of their specific situation?

[est31]

Yeah it's not UBI, but it still gives rise to a set of people described by "UBI consumer serfs". Who are basically locked in, because even if they got a job, they'd likely be worse off than before, having to pay for more things that were free previously, and having much larger personal costs (having to get up at 6 am every day).

[p1necone]

Yes my point was that that wouldn't happen with a real UBI as it wouldn't go away if they got a job or started saving money.