No it does not, bullies and criminals are not seeking to optimize their cash flow. I know this is just for squigees and other petty annoyances, but it's a slippery slope to paying people to just not commit crimes.

Have you lived in the ghetto or in extremely poor neighborhoods? I grew up in Oakland, Modesto, and Fresno, with gang banging friends and having to deal with these other gangsters not in your crew, who would like nothing more than to beat you up, steal your cash, and brag to their friends about commit their crimes. Those who commit crimes will commit crimes on the whim, jump you and cash, and never once have foresight on how their present actions have future consequences.

Empower bullies and lowlifes, and they'll continuously pick on you and bully you and others.

> Have you lived in the ghetto or in extremely poor neighborhoods?

Yes.

> Those who commit crimes will commit crimes on the whim

The vast majority of the time, that "whim" is "I need cash to buy dinner". This is especially true of people squeegeeing cars.

I would much rather see full-fledged safety nets like UBI, but paying people such that they are no longer dependent on nuisance or outright crime for survival is a start.

Unless the police are out there chasing them down and establishing an arrest record to show they previously lied, why would they be denied payments in the future?

People in that situation usually have a high time preference.

Yes, they would. Unless you're also proposing some enforcement mechanism where you detect defectors. But, if you could reliably detect them, why not just stop them?