In Finland, all unemployed are guaranteed “free money” even if they choose not to seek employment. The difference from UBI is that this final security net, so to speak, only guarantees a minimum level of income – any earned wages (or existing wealth) directly affect the welfare payments on this level.

edit: the whole system is more complicated than this, of course, but the point here is that this safety net is permanent – you can not lose it even if you are unemployed for a long time (recently, a tiny reduction of welfare payment was introduced for those who do not meet certain criteria for activity; however, you are in any case entitled to certain level of income, and government-paid rent, etc., in any case.)

Yeah, not really, since it's not even an argument but an empirical question.

Feeling like you can loudly assert things not in evidence is a sign of some pretty tall ideological blinders.

There is a big difference between "getting free money forever" and "getting free money for some time" (1-2 years or so, at least in my country). Especially, if you have a family you definitely not want to risk running out of welfare.

There is a difference, and you offer a hypothesis on how it would affect work incentives. And it'd be silly to reject that hypothesis out of hand.

But a hypothesis is just that: a hypothesis, not a fact. There's plenty of existing research on how changing unemployment benefits change work incentives (answer: not too much), but it's also true that longer time horizons might change that answer. That's why experimental tests are needed.