> who most need help are getting some. This is the crux of the point. We're discussing that two people with equal _capability_ to pay, but differing conscienti

> who most need help are getting some. This is the crux of the point. We're discussing that two people with equal _capability_ to pay, but differing conscientiousness have outcomes that are inverted from a well ordered set of incentives. We're creating (additional) precedents for rewarding irresponsibility with finances in the face of marginal choices between paying back a loan and present day consumption. (not in the choice of degree) > you would be much more interested in the pounds being given to interests that clearly don't need them (military, mega farms, oil) instead of the pennies given to those that do. I actually am interested in these, and they're just not the specific topic today. For the record I am against most (all?) forms of market distortion by the government, except when they're breaking obviously distorted economic incentives[1] (and not creating worse ones as is the case here). > of it is no taxes are levied Taxes for the most part a general bucket and as such expenditures as such are from taxes paid. Even if it's not my money it's not right for whomever paid them [1] such as tragedy of the commons