That's an interesting way to look at it. Yes it adds a 1% inefficiency because it pays out to wealthy people (that's what "the 1%" means, right?) that don't nee

That's an interesting way to look at it. Yes it adds a 1% inefficiency because it pays out to wealthy people (that's what "the 1%" means, right?) that don't need it, but I can easily imagine that simpler rules would yield back 5-10% just due to reduced administrative overhead, let alone the cost of everyones lives debating this stupid topic endlessly and the economic opportunity cost with everyone spending their time trying to game the unnecessarily complex rules.