I guess the point is that with a robust safety net, people wouldn't have to live in crippling poverty because of "some life decisions". The first-order reason they are in poverty is that they don't have money, so if the safety net is robust enough, that first-order problem can be solved by cash. If you think it would also be helpful to coach them on the second-order problem (decision-making skills), great. But money is the immediate and direct solution to the problem.
But there really is barely any absolute poverty in the Netherlands (or Germany, or Denmark, or Sweden, or France, or ....), we're mostly talking about relative poverty, that is nobody is starving or can't get healthcare, or is homeless (yes, homelessness exists, but it's primarily a substance abuse/mental health issue) because they're poor, because the government covers all of that, and the few exceptions are e.g. undocumented immigrants who aren't eligible.
They're poor because we define poverty as having 60% or 50% of the median net income. You still live in a flat, you still have enough money for food and you don't need to beg to heat your home, but you'll have trouble affording things that average citizens consider normal, like taking trips, eating out, buying gadgets, or saving money.
In both absolute and relative poverty, more money helps alleviate it. But giving people enough money to escape abject poverty is something else entirely from enforcing everyone to earn exactly the same so that nobody could have less than the median.
