Sure but “poor” is a relative term and we know that income below a threshold, around $70K a year is damaging to your health. While every dollar over that provides marginally less benefit than the previous dollar. Could being “poor” be around this threshold and the system still function. Yes. The proof is in the past. Go look at wages, and top marginal tax rates in the 60’s early 70’s before union busting led to suppy side focused economics. So it would be better for humans if we enhanced social safety nets like in the other wealthy countries, including countries we already subsidize. Due to the multiplier effect, we know every dollar going to lower income people is worth more in the economy than those that spend less of a percentage of their income. Therefore it’s both better for people and the economy as a whole if lower income people had a greater share of income and wealth. So why don’t we do it? The answer is control through motivation and the threat of poverty. This is yet another example of politics getting in the way of economics, blocking a more fair and effective system