UBI would go a long way towards pulling the very poor up out of the cycle of "I'll take whichever bad choice is least bad right now because I'm desperate."
If you work a minijob, you get welfare (housing, utilities, health insurance, cash) + the first 100€ you earn are yours to keep. On the next ~350€ you'll pay 20% for social insurance and get to keep some of it, the rest is deducted from your benefits, so you'll keep 100% of your welfare + 184€. There's no way you're worse off than on benefits if you're working.
If you work more, your benefits will be reduced until you earn enough to not get any benefits. Roughly 20% of people on benefits work, but make less than benefits, so they get the rest via benefits ("Aufstockung").
So I work, but still get roughly the same as if I didn't work. 200€ per month more doesn't seem to be a great incentive to start working again if it's, let's say, one of the less desirable jobs.
Furthermore, the "Aufstockung" means that effectively the tax payer is footing the bill for companies unwilling to pay a reasonable wage.
15-20% more is some incentive, I agree though, the delta should be larger.
> Furthermore, the "Aufstockung" means that effectively the tax payer is footing the bill for companies unwilling to pay a reasonable wage.
In some cases, yes. But you can also view it as "we need to employ people, but their skills really aren't competitive, so it's better to give them some money from taxes than to give them 100% from taxes".
Re a very complex problem with "nobody should be in such a weak position".
It is only complex if avoiding questions about the value of human dignity, and the inability of laissez faire capitalism to deliver that, need to be avoided.
I think libertarian socialism does exactly that but in this case what's being argued for is JG (and UBI) which would help empower many, so we shouldn't be arguing against those things (not saying you are.)
