Why don’t governments just give poor people cash with no strings attached–a minimum income or mincome–instead of in-kind benefits such as food stamps and housing vouchers? True, some recipients would choose not to engage in productive work, spending their time at strip clubs or the horse track. But so what? Others would use the security of a minimum income to create new businesses and follow their dreams. As an added bonus, a “mincome” system would reduce the size of government bureaucracy by replacing such in-kind and paternalistic programs as unemployment benefits, legal aid, food stamps, and public housing. (Perhaps this possibility explains why governments still prefer to give in-kind benefits over cash.)
For more on the pros and cons of mincome, see this report in the Sunday Times about an upcoming Swiss referendum essentially proposing to pay people for being alive. In summary, every single Swiss citizen would receive a monthly income from the government, no strings attached. Regardless of the outcome of this referendum, why hasn’t any wealthy country (so far) adopted such a radical and truly-effective anti-poverty program?
prior probability 
I think any sort of help from the government should be regulated as far as a time frame. Even with the “mincome”, while some may use it to achieve their goals and dreams, there will always be some that will abuse the system and just be happy with a free hand out. Perhaps by having a time frame of how long poor people will get help, it would encourage them to go find a stable job or find a way to earn for themselves. At the end of that time frame, if they are still in need of assistance, then maybe they should have to explain why they are having difficulties finding a job, paying for their expenses, etc…just a thought.
There is a dominant individualist view today that poverty, and the need for government aid, results primarily from individual’s shortcomings. The poor, especially individuals in need of government assistance, are believed to be poor due to a lack of determination, intelligence, motivation, and will power. However, it is important to consider the structural problems worldwide that contribute to each individual’s chances of success from the moment of their birth. Using a sociological perspective, it is evident that the current poverty problems are a result of larger economic and political forces, rather than individual shortcomings. There exists a large gap in the distribution of wealth worldwide between the wealthy, and the poor. This idea is commonly referred to in America as the “shrinking middle class”. Unfortunately, no amount of aid or “mincome” given to people in poverty will truly solve this growing problem. Proof of this statement is in the very idea of a “mincome”; giving financial aid is a temporary fix and the problem is continuing to grow. After all, is minimum wage not also considered a “mincome”?
Despite the way people receiving government assistance are portrayed on news and television in general, most of the individuals receiving government aid are juggling several jobs, cannot afford health insurance even with aid, cannot afford healthy food to keep them from needing medical attention, and cannot afford better education (and transportation) to lift them out of their socioeconomic status. Plato said, “An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics”. I think wealthy governments have not adopted the idea of “mincomes”, because they do not yet have to.