It is called 'bijstand', is about € 1k a month and you are eligible for all kinds of other discounts and support.
Just request it at your municipality and make sure not to find work.
That's just welfare, not UBI. The U stands for Universal, which means it goes to everyone. Not just the poor or unemployed.
The U is better understood as Unconditional. It doesn't go to everybody or everything, but it doesn't get taken away if you stop working.
These were used pretty much equally until about 2011, when the less accurate one started taking hold:
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=2004-04-11%202...
It has to, because one of the selling point of it is the minimal administrative overhead. In the U.K. we have armies of civil servants to administer our hideously complex welfare system. All of them and the costs of employing them have to go to make it affordable. The good news is that they too will get UBI...
Living wage is shifting the goalposts, anyway it’s a simple calculation, total welfare budget including benefits of all kinds divided by number of adult citizens.
But if we're determining welfare budget by dividing non-pension benefit spend by number of working age adults, the problem becomes that you're dividing around 130 billion by ~36 million, and whilst that's a welcome top up for some people, there are a lot of people who have just lost their housing benefit and disability benefit that won't be able to live on £4k a year...
And the 'average' paycheck is not an 'average' in the term we use now (where we just look at the workers, add up their paychecks and divide by their number), but we also have to add up all the non workers (kids, pensioners, unemployed, studens,...) with "0 EUR" paychecks, and divide by the number of them too, because they'd get UBI too.
If it stays the same for this person, that means he has to pay an extra UBI to receive the UBI. If this person is making basic income right now, he might as wel stop working and still get the basic income, or at least lose less percentage wise when stop working.
The special feature of schemes like UBI and NIT (Negative Income Tax) is that they remove the high effective marginal tax rate from poor people who work.
The problem with conditional welfare payments is that they increase effective marginal tax rate for poor household. The rates are really high 70-100% depending on country and situation.
For example, in Finland effective marginal tax rate for poor person is somewhere between 80-101%. (That 101% is for single parent for low income job). According to Greg Mankiv and others the effective marginal tax rate for the poor can be 70-90 percent in the US.
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/business/economy/10view.h...
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/10/gr...
UBI and NIT (Negative Income Tax) are designed to increase incentives. That's why free market economists like Friedman fiercely supported it.
Milton Friedman - The Negative Income Tax: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM
(It's also theoretically possible to design tax brackets for a UBI/NIT system which imply effective marginal rates at 80%+, though I'm not sure why anyone would actually want to do that)
Tapered benefit withdrawals are the exact reason for high effective marginal tax rate. You can't use them.
You can design welfare system effective marginal tax rate decreases smoothly, but you can't make it linear. (unless you make the taxation incredibly complex and effectively same as UBI/NTI)
In the real world [i] the effective marginal tax rate in for a UBI imposed in contemporary society is still going to be very steep (UK subsistence UBI ~£10k per year, median UK taxpayer under current system has a taxable income of ~£22k per year and many people on sub-median incomes are net taxpayers) and [ii] the conditionality of a benefit is a pretty strong reason to take a job, high effective marginal tax rate or not