> The best way to help people is to get more diligent about policing those we do help
Would the cost of doing that exceed the savings? If so (and that seems rather likely; the vast majority of social welfare recipients do _not_ cheat), it seems rather impractical.
In practice, people cheat in all systems, and a certain amount of cheating is built into the assumptions for any well-designed system. For instance, tax authorities do not audit everybody, because it would be impractical; in not doing so they accept a certain amount of tax fraud. Shops don't watch everyone who comes in the door all the time, because it would be impractical; in not doing so they accept a certain amount of theft (most of what accountants call 'shrinkage' is employee and customer theft).
Would the cost of doing that exceed the savings? If so (and that seems rather likely; the vast majority of social welfare recipients do _not_ cheat), it seems rather impractical.
In practice, people cheat in all systems, and a certain amount of cheating is built into the assumptions for any well-designed system. For instance, tax authorities do not audit everybody, because it would be impractical; in not doing so they accept a certain amount of tax fraud. Shops don't watch everyone who comes in the door all the time, because it would be impractical; in not doing so they accept a certain amount of theft (most of what accountants call 'shrinkage' is employee and customer theft).