So to bring us back, I need to call out how much scruteny poor people are under to prove their poorness is not a moral failing instead of the fact they are paid less than enough to meet the poverty line - a line chosen to describe not "Who has enough", but instead "Who is literally starving".
Agree, which is why if you read the FAQ here https://rgmii.org/blog/initial-frequently-asked-questions/#why-not-universal it says
RGMII does not contract with any external means verification services. GiveDirectly personally verifies all dimensions of program eligibility, drawing on more than 15 years of experience delivering large-scale cash programs in the U.S. and internationally. By using a streamlined, low-overhead model, 85% of RISE RGMII funding is paid directly to recipients.
and it also says https://rgmii.org/blog/initial-frequently-asked-questions/#how-do-you-prevent-abuse
Focusing so heavily on the prevention of abuse can cost more than the abuse itself. It also fosters a culture of distrust and stigma where you must constantly prove you are needy “enough” to qualify. Some are so ashamed they don’t even bother to apply.
RGMII only asks for simple, minimal documentation — enough to verify household income and residency. Systems that trust the people they help are not only more efficient, but also more effective, because participants return trust by engaging in good faith.
also
So no. I do not trust us with any means testing. I will not until we fix existing means testing.
in that same section of the faq:
UBI implementations often assume efficient eligibility testing is not possible due to the so-called “means-testing industrial complex”:
I suggest you come along with us and direct your ire at the "means testing industrial complex", and not than the very people we are trying to help. Some of these companies are outright evil, especially Maximus.