6 ms·
For issue (1), the articles I've seen suggest that the vast majority of people just don't do this. Certainly some do, but I don't see why a couple bad actors in
by maxpupmax 9y ago
For issue (1), the articles I've seen suggest that the vast majority of people just don't do this. Certainly some do, but I don't see why a couple bad actors invalidate a scheme which can work for most of the population.
I don't have an authoritative source on the above claims, but here's a 538 article which talks about the issue a bit. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/most-welfare-dollars-dont-go-directly-to-poor-people-anymore/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/most-welfare-dollars-do...
"[reduction in cash assistance] has happened despite a burgeoning economics literature suggesting that direct cash transfers are in many cases the most efficient tool to fight poverty."
Issue (2) seems less cut-and-dry to me.
- remarkEon 9y agoMy point is not meant to imply that bad actors invalidate the scheme, but that it seems likely that a political regime wishing to maintain (or gain) power could capitalize on our empathy for marginalized groups, adding complexity and building quite the leviathan.