If UBI is a universal basic income, then, by its definition it should only be large enough to provide the basics. (food, shelter, clothing).
So, taking someone's UBI can amount to death. (If all other forms of community welfare are gone) Thus, the taking of someone's UBI as a form of punishment is akin to a death sentence.
And lets be clear, prices will adjust such that UBI is almost exactly what it costs to maintain an apartment, eat and the essentials. No matter how many spending units you give to UBI.
There is no excess to take from. So, this entire post becomes replaced with do or die. You get caught cheating, you die. There is a glitch in the system, you die.
At the bare minimum any form of insurance will have to be fast enough to prevent starvation. Meaning, you have one meal time to get an application in, approved, and have action taken.
I really do not like this form of system.
First of all, if you lose your UBI it would be like the system we have today, you have to trade labor for food. Most people will earn income far in excess of the UBI simply because the market equilibrium value for UBI will necessarily be low enough that most people will work to improve their own standard of living above what UBI can provide.
Second of all, people should have savings. If you are living UBI payment to UBI payment then you are doing it wrong. People will not let people starve and voluntary charity would still exist.
You response is attacking a strawman rather than reality.
My response is what I have seen in practice.
We used to have a very robust social charity system. Now it is almost all replaced with legislated things tied in with welfare. If we had a UBI, it wouldn't exist at all. Any failure of people being fed will be look at as a problem of the UBI system, and the system will be demanded to fix it. (Which, in my opinion will never be close to 100%)
HA!!! People should have savings now... and most live paycheck to paycheck.
You don't even want to know what people on welfare live like. (You have 25 days of food per month... what do you do those last 5 days?)
Yes, those people who work will have far more than those who don't. BUT, the problem that UBI is being brought up to fix is that people are being phased out of jobs. Robots are doing the manufacturing, so there isn't enough jobs for everyone. (in our current monetary system) So, if there is not enough jobs for everyone, telling someone to get a job or die... is telling them to die.
And thus, what is the use of the UBI in the first place?
The question isn't a matter of whether it is useful or works in all cases. The question is whether it is moral based upon first principles. Whether a UBI can feed someone or just amounts to $1 per day in purchasing power, it is a just system.
If people complain about the UBI not feeding people and attempt to morph it into a slavery system where the productive serve the unproductive then society will begin consuming its seed corn. Production will decline and the revised UBI will no longer be sufficient. The process will repeat until money is worthless and there is nothing left to divide.
The system I propose provides a UBI based upon first principles and does so without specifying the purchasing power the UBI would grant.
The biggest danger is people wanting to reinterpret their UBI as something it is not. Once they reinterpret it, then they will either start enslaving their fellow man or denying him his birthright. There is very little room to deviate from the 1 share per person per day without creating a system that is no longer sustainable or fair.