How do you get to those figures? I get much less.

Oh and if you own a house $1500/month is easy to live off. You can probably have a car for that.

My understanding is that US food stamps provide significantly better than rice and beans for every meal.

It's not useless in promoting UBI given the uncritical news coverage in Germany.

It's funny how UBI is one of the few economic policies that require such rigorous study to be considered for implementation. Pretty much every other aspect of our economic system was just implemented because of economic theory building without much empirical justification.

Yeah, for some things a bit of speculative imagination, thinking through possible outcomes isn't actually that bad compared to more evidence oriented alternatives. You can't really have a control group for community wide effects and without a control group you don't even know if an observed change happened because of what you did out despite of what you did even after the experiment. Sometimes hindsight isn't 20/20 at all but surprisingly blind.

What I think could be a very interesting on-ramp to something more UBIesque, in an environment with lots of need-based social support payments like Germany, would be an opt-in flat taxation mode for earning on the side of receiving aid: taxed high starting with the first cent earned, and in exchange those earnings are explicitly excluded from and need-based considerations or thresholds. That could greatly reduce all "not worth the hassle" considerations and uncertainties. It could be implemented as a special bank account where every incoming transaction is automatically taxed, and every payment or withdrawal certified "I'm allowed to have this without putting anything need-based in question.

What tax rate? The logical first candidate would be wherever the income tax curve tops out for high earners. If that's the highest those can be bothered with before they "stop performing", you should not be surprised if low earners would not want to perform at a higher effective tax rate either. But that tax rate should not be so low that a shift to regular taxation makes no sense in cases sufficiently permanent and wellhpaying that the administrative change isn't just overhead.

It sure would. I was living off of a way smaller stipend for 2 or 3 years (the Austrian "Selbsterhalterstipendium"), and it was the most unproductive time of my life because I got enough to get by with minimal effort, since the conditions for the stipend were ridiculously low. I learned that if I can get money with basically no strings attached, I become lazy. Nowadays I'm not, simply because I have to work for stuff. I enjoy my work, but I wouldnt do it if it wasnt necessary.

It was a great time, but it tought me that people get lazy if they don't have to work. So now I am obviously projecting my own lazyness to the general population, which is why I am against UBI.

If it's inflation adjusted and I trust it's forever, I would 100% quit my job and work on something less stressful that I enjoy more. 1200 Euro is slightly below my average monthly expenses; my job pays multiple times this, but I keep at it to save and make sure I won't ever want for money.

(I live in Spain, not Germany)

It would greatly reduce the barrier between receiving transfer money and earning for yourself that the existing need-based transfer system creates. This is a huge hindrance for jumping off the receiving end. Lump sum transfer also creates an incentive situation where non-standard frugality approaches can thrive (e.g. various shared living concepts), whereas need-based transfer really only just shoves every receiver into a pretend-middle class standard cookie cutter pattern.