The article many diverse claims. It’s a scattergun argument, where the author doesn’t have a single good point, so he make many weak ones. So I’ll just address the first point.

Calling for “Savings in health, justice, education and social welfare as well as the building of self-reliant, taxpaying citizen,” clearly means social cuts and privatization.

This is wrong. The savings are from lifting people out of poverty.

• health: This is because the destitute save money by postponing medical care. In the long run they end up with much more expensive illnesses. This becomes a financial burden for the state. So it’s pragmatic to lift people out of poverty with UBI.

• Justice: Reducing poverty is expected to reduce petty crime.

• Education: I don’t know about this one. Maybe people predict a healthier job market so people don’t need so many qualifications to get a good career.

• Social welfare: Because UBI increases employment by removing the welfare trap.

You might not agree with all of the above points. But they are all probable consequences of UBI people might reasonably expect. Saying it “clearly means social cuts and privatization” is shockingly stupid. The article was written by someone who doesn’t even understand the basics.

It don’t have time to refute everything in the article. But really, it is all bollox.

This article is misguided and misinformed, at least for the situation of Germany, from where the author comes from. See the original discussion in economis.