That's the argument for UBI. Basically it's "no, we don't trust the government even to decide if somebody is in a precarious situation, much less to know how to help them".

It's probably more cynical than the reality warrants, but it's visibly closer to the truth than the current "let's poll the money and hire some people to help the ones in need".

> "no, we don't trust the government even to decide if somebody is in a precarious situation, much less to know how to help them"

UBI switches the question : "we think the people themselves would do a much better job if they just had the money". It's gonna be true in some cases. And completely wrong in many others.

1. I need to see the exact statistic, but IME statistics like that are flawed because they undercount the amount of people served (ie. housing assistance that keeps people housed would count towards the budget, but won't count toward the amount of "homeless individuals")

2. the other possibility is that for the very mentally ill, they actually do need 2x the median income to survive, eg. because of mental illness counseling costs.

If there was a no-strings attached $108K/y to be had somewhere, some conniving scum would find a way to get their hands on it before any single genuine homeless person in need.

Conniving scum skimming off the top is a large is part of the reason it costs $108k/y/pp in the first place. A simpler system is less prone to fraud and embezzlement.