Rectifying S.S.I. and Basic Income Policies for US.Gov

 S.S.I. has a program for poor seniors citizens over 65 that includes a monthly payment. yet the policies for the program were not designed by poor people with actual experience at living a life in poverty so there are implicit unfair structures in it. There are some criteria that need be rectified. Some native Americans have for thousands of years maintained a winter and a summer residence instead of living year-around in one dwelling. S.S.I. eligibility criteria disqualify people that own two residences- even if it is simply a warm winter place and a cool summer place and the total value of each property is fewer than $10,000. S.S.I. would allow those better off and able to afford a $150,000 condo where they can live annually with electricity, running water, toilets and a road eligibility if their other resources were less than $2000. S.S.I.'s eligibility criteria drive Americans to be poor and to not help themselves. Because some poor Americans have two lots instead of one nice house the very practical low-cost living solution of camping on private property year-around in two places where the weather is tolerable is a disqualifier for the S.S.I. cash supplement program.

S.S.I. eligibility criteria should not penalize Americans for trying to help themselves. If they are on S.S.I. for being old or being disabled they should feel free to look for employment or try self-employment without worry they will lose S.S.I. if the job doesn't last and they won't be able to return to the program quickly. S.S.I. might better be regarded as the core of a national basic income that kicks in for the old and disabled first if they have fewer annual earnings than something like $20,000 and makes up the difference. Especially in this era of environmental and A.I. challenges and changes to employment prospects and stability it is important to create a national basic income infrastructure that is effective. It would enable Americans some lifetime security against losing all of their possessions and investments the next time there is a high unemployment rate and inflation.

Actually there are many poor Americans that would buy land in different climate zones to survive each year if they would not lose S.S.I. eligibility. The policy is implicitly unfair and a remedy would be just to allow one eligibility if they have less than $30,000 in multiple real estate possessions or a single residence worth fewer than $100,000. There is no reason to compel Americans to become poorer- seasonally homeless in order to receive S.S.I. and have a livable annual income. Neither is there a good reason to penalize ingenuity at finding practical solutions to where one can live in retirement affordably.People do discriminate actively against age for employment, and there is also race and gender discrimination from some quarters that everyone experience regardless of race or gender. Therefore making objective programs from the government that work for the poor should be a goal for rectifying implicit federal iniquities.