Please, no. It already stinks enough in Washington (and elsewhere, too, for that matter).
The prospect of eliminating most or all of those bloated government welfare programs, with the concomitant reduction of costs in administering those programs, seems appealing at first glance.
The promise of increased personal responsibility, both for former welfare recipients as well as for former agency employees, hints at beneficial outcomes in market dynamics.
the flaw in the slaw is the concept that the government owes anybody a living.
I would prefer private charities and churches provide all or most poverty aid, as it use to be in the past. One-size-fits-all behemoth government program never work, are wasteful and riddled with fraud and corruption. Of course, that’s why the pols like them.
I would donate much more to charity if I wasn’t being raped so much for taxes.
The primary people to suffer if the poor were given an allocation would be the people who run the programs. I'm all for survival of the fittest. Many would waste their money and maybe die in the streets, for sure.
Many others would learn to budget and allocate their funds in ways that create wealth, moving upward. Let people make their own choices, or they have no way out of the maze.
I contend that this approach would save more people than it would destroy.
A basic income guarantee or reverse income tax or whatever it might be called will raise prices due to the extra money sufficient that the income will boost people’s ability to buy stuff to pretty much the same level as when they did not have the reverse tax income.