Were things better for low income communities before those attempts to help? I'm young, so honest question given minimal experience. Most of these programs seem to short-term help, with some minor annoying externalities and at worst flatish long-term results.

Well if you look at poverty graph there was HUGE reduction in poverty up until massive social programs which lock people into them

The Welfare trap, going back decades shows that it is almost impossible to get out of it because the way benefits roll off you end up losing $1.5 in government "assistance" for every $1 you make in wages, so people can not escapse

Plans like the Negative income tax would be far far more humane and actually help reduce poverty

When you say going decades back do you possibly mean back to the 80s when welfare queen became the boogeyman of the day and welfare projects were hobbled and slashed? Or do you mean back to the New Deal era where millions were brought of poverty with government work programs?

Agreed with the US style of welfare, definitely, it's like a prison for many.

I find myself supporting UBI more because it avoids a lot of those pitfalls (instead seemingly moving its weaknesses to some more obvious and awkward areas, a trade I definitely would take in the long run).

Which programs are you referring to?

No we haven't.

I think a negative income tax would be better because it proves incentive for each person to work as much as they are able.

Most welfare programs, including UBI, don't disincentivize people from sitting around doing nothing and don't incentivize people to work if they can. Even worse, many welfare programs actively disincentivize people from working, effectively trapping them in the welfare program.

I also think it would be good to implement an incentive to employers to report to whom and how much they pay to discourage people from working under the table.