3 ms·

This would just cause more people to apply.

• rcxdude 3y ago
  The point is the increase in spending due to both more applicants and all applicants succeeding in getting the support would be less than the reduction in spending on the being of them. This is very likely true marginally in most benefits systems: there's a bias towards avoiding any case of someone getting an "undeserved" benefit, because this is politically unpopular, even though the system will spend more money than the benefit costs to make sure that rejection happens (not to mention the additional cost to society of the incorrect rejections: ironically the more admin overhead you add to getting benefits the less accurate it becomes, as people who do not have the time or capability to navigate the bureaucracy drop out despite meeting the requirements, but those exploiting the system jave all the time in the world to find the cracks). (The UK has a particularly extreme version of this: the benefits department is hellbent on rejecting as many applicants as possible, and they lose a huge amount of court cases because of it, at great cost to the taxpayer and the lives of those affected)