What's unfair is to take away someone's welfare once they finally land a minimal pay job. That diminishes or removes the incentive to actually find a job.
Did I say otherwise?
Me agreeing that taking away
> someone's welfare once they finally land a minimal pay job.
Is not the same as me agreeing that all welfare systems are unfair (You're only considering unemployment welfare payments. There's others).
I don't understand how you can confuse the two.
It's possible to have what almost everyone would consider a fair welfare system.
It's not possible to have what even a significant minority would consider to be a fair UBI system.
Welfare systems have a goal of ensuring that people who need more get more.
UBI has the goal of ensuring that no one gets more than anyone else.
Another welfare system in addition to the existing welfare system is quite undesirable for most proponents of UBI who (like the parent I responded to earlier) present "no other welfare system" as a benefit of UBI.
I think it worth considering UBI in this light. I'm not a proponent of eliminating all other welfare.
That's never going to happen. UBI will not replace existing welfare payouts, it will augment them.
Until society is ready to let people and children die in the street because they (or their parents, in the case of children) gambled or boozed all of the UBI away, or it got stolen from them, or they simply burned it due to mental health problems, we still have to have safety nets for people who don't have money.
Which is the whole point of the current welfare assistance system.
UBI is also a no-go in terms of "universal". It's just too unfair. Why should a healthy 20yo get paid (to play video games) the same as a crippled 40yo? The latter literally needs more money just to survive, and doesn't have the same employment options as the healthy 20yo gamer.
If ever UBI is rolled out, you'll see on day two the complaints come rolling in from special groups.