A lot of these tests miss validating one of the key arguments against means-tested assistance - that there is a cliff to scale for people who were on that assis

A lot of these tests miss validating one of the key arguments against means-tested assistance - that there is a cliff to scale for people who were on that assistance, but crossed the imaginary line to slightly better means and are now significantly worse off. Consider a family who are receiving affordable housing program benefits in an expensive urban area. If they strive to improve their incomes, they are unlikely to afford the same home in the same area at market rate. However, the threshold for that assistance is often a lot lower than the actual income needed for the market rate unit. What would a rational self-interested person do in this situation? Avoid going over the threshold at all costs, in other words stay poorer than they could have been. A test that would be super beneficial is to see what choices would people make if you removed means-testing - would they feel empowered? Would outcomes improve?