>It's simpler than that. This isnt complicated. >No bureaucrat or appointee ever got a promotion or got more resources at their disposal for getting people of

>It's simpler than that. This isnt complicated. >No bureaucrat or appointee ever got a promotion or got more resources at their disposal for getting people off of government services and shrinking the relevance of the program. I can remember a number of such examples where there were incentives this being just one: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/30/cruel-benefits-sanctions-dwp-job-advisers-evidence-work https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/30/cruel-... If business runs government then it's in their interests to keep benefits systems stingy, capricious, hard to navigate and unpredictable as it makes people more reliant on their employers. Removing it altogether would probably trigger riots but the frog can certainly be boiled.