> Yeah, NO, it definitely does major distortions. If welfare turns from a temporary safety net only used by a few and paid by many, to a system now many rely on

> Yeah, NO, it definitely does major distortions. If welfare turns from a temporary safety net only used by a few and paid by many, to a system now many rely on long term and paid only by a few, then it ends up distorting everything: the tax system, the labor market, the rental market, government spending and debt, etc. all of which negatively affect a nation's economic competitiveness. My point was entirely focused on the Swedish model which doesn't create major distortions due to how it works, you cannot be on welfare for an undetermined amount of time unless you are disabled. For your points, I believe we need real hard data, I cannot determine if what you say about Germany is actually true without looking at it. How many people in Germany are living only on welfare for long periods (at least 12 months, what proportion stays for 24+ months)? What is the proportion between people temporarily on welfare vs long-term ones (excluding disabilities that remove someone from the labour pool)? What percentage of Germany's budget go to service welfare costs for the issue you brought up (people living on welfare instead of working)? I'm asking for hard data because it smells very much like the "welfare queens" trope used in the USA by Reagan which was absolute bullshit.