This article doesn’t speak at all to the fraud potential.
Also the real answer to the question posed in the headline is that the most powerful voting blocks will naturally receive the highest subsidies in a democracy.
I'm sure there will be fraud, but does that matter?
So what if a small percent of old people (that presumably need the money so bad they they are willing to commit fraud)? Better that than gma stealing from local businesses.
The fraud should be a relatively small percent, as gparents should at least prove they have grandkids.
I don't think pensioners are a particularly strong voting bloc in Sweden. Youth election participation is among 80-90% (vs 50% in the US which you may be thinking about) and due to immigration the population pyramid is quite healthy.
Heavens forbid elderly people get some more money every month. How much is it going to be for getting to elderly age and fostering successful children who raised their own children in turn?
It's kind of weird to say "Heavens forbid [the wealthiest age demographic] get some more money every month." Especially when that demo already tends to get a lot of cash transfers.
I make no value judgment on this policy, I’m just pointing out that systems have a natural outcome based on the incentive structure. Or, as Charlie Munger put it much more eloquently: “Show me the incentives and I will show you the outcome.”
I wish more people, including voters but especially lawmakers, would use this analysis technique more often as it would lead to laws that actually accomplish what they claim.
Also the real answer to the question posed in the headline is that the most powerful voting blocks will naturally receive the highest subsidies in a democracy.