We can play a game of anecdotal evidence all day. My experience is totally opposite to yours, welfare was though and no way in hell did we have more than our pe

We can play a game of anecdotal evidence all day. My experience is totally opposite to yours, welfare was though and no way in hell did we have more than our peers. Welfare was also something you didn't talk about, it was embarrassing and my dad yearned for a job, not for the money, he got that on welfare, but for the human dignity, the social contact, the respect, instead he was paralysed at home. Incentives played no role. But we're in agreement on your final sentence and I do acknowledge that there are people who game the system. But the issue I feel with the welfare debate is that it's usually a discussion about reducing it (to increase incentives to work), maintaining it or expanding it, with most people leaning towards one of the first two options. When really there are genuine cases of welfare where incentives play no role, and they're being squeezed hard. The debate should be more geared towards reducing fraud, catching dishonest recipients and supporting them in their dependency, not squeezing dishonest and honest welfare recipients all the same.