Why doesn't the gov go full dystopia to combat benefit fraud? \ stacker news ~econ

pull down to refresh

Why doesn't the gov go full dystopia to combat benefit fraud?

967 sats \ 11 comments \ @stack_harder 10 Feb econ

Ok, now I want to preface this by saying that this is a thought experiment and I do not like the government, cbdcs, or any of that stuff. I don't care if you hate welfare and want to cancel it, I'm not talking about that.

I am interested in what dystopian things a government could do if they really wanted to go full bore and cut out as much benefit fraud as possible.

Why? Because according to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) in the UK, about £6.4 billion is lost per year to benefit fraud.

Since the gov is always trying to steal more tax and do all kinds of other retarded things to keep the fiat boat afloat anyway, I wonder why they don't just make all benefits a programmable cbdc or something that they can control where it is spent, on what and even program in a time limit to force people to consume. Keysians like that idea anyway right?

While most people don't like the ideas of cbdcs, I'm sure they wouldn't care if it was just a benefits thing, since most people are constantly wound up about benefit fraud and things like that.

i mean, if the problem is that bad, I simply don't see why it's so hard to fix, given that there is a piece of nefarious tech that can fix it (I'm talking from a government perspective here, not my own perspective).

i remember someone here saying that it was more efficient to just give people money and let them decide on what to spend it on, so food coupons wouldn't work etc, but i don't see why the gov would be worried about that, they are usually quite happy to create market imbalances via subsidies etc

or is the whole issue one where it's pointless to suggest such things and the gov will just have to accept that if there is a welfare system, then there will always be a % lost to fraudulent claims?

(reminder, i am not a pro cbdc person, i am not a pro-welfare state person, i am not a socialist. i just wonder if the government could combat the issue better, using all and any dystopian methods available)

view all related items

37 sats \ 1 reply \ @alt 23h

Probably the biggest problem (for governments) if they chose to do this would be that they would give people a chance to experience and give feedback on these systems before implementing them on a large scale.

CBDCs are such an awful idea for citizens and such a great idea for tyrants, and I think the government understands this. Thus the only way to implement CBDCs is to do it before the public understands why they should oppose them.

If the gov rolled out CBDCs just for benefits, they run the risk of a sizeable portion of the population figuring out how bad they are.

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @stack_harder OP 23h

gen pop seems to understand that cbdcs are bad on an instinctive level, i don't know if they would care if benefit people had them though since there is already a lot of resentment. who knows, i don't think it will happen of course, probably just more ai use to find forms of fraud

100 sats \ 2 replies \ @kilianbuhn 22h

because the government isn't completely into being a totalitarian control state?

12 sats \ 1 reply \ @stack_harder OP 22h

maybe, but dont forget that what you consider totalitarian control and what a government consider totalitarian control will not be the same thing

32 sats \ 0 replies \ @Milkman9000 18h

Exactly, I'm sure it you asked Mao if communist china was a totalitarian hellscape, he'd have said it was paradise. Kilianbuhn meanwhile would be sitting in a gulag wondering why on earth the precious and benevolent government would do such a thing

41 sats \ 1 reply \ @jimmysong 21h

The main assumption here that's wrong is that government is competent at IT. It's not.

Even giant companies have a really hard time integrating new IT infrastructure. A failed IT upgrade is one of the most oft cited reasons for firing CEOs, for example. Incidentally, this is why Costco refuses to upgrade their systems. It's too costly and the chance of failure high.

If you want to know how bad it is, just remember what happened with healthcare.gov. Government is an order of magnitude worse than large companies. CBDCs and the dystopian nightmare you're talking about is almost an existential risk to government. Think about some software bug that doesn't let you buy groceries or pay for a used car from a neighbor. It's bound to cause way more strife than almost anything else. This is why despite the power to do so, China is rolling out their CBDC slowly and very carefully. Even then, there are going to be big glitches.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @stack_harder OP 20h

it would be a total cluster fuck, although i would enjoy observing from the sidelines. there are still ways they could be dystopian without a cbdc though , put everyone on coupons or something for example

33 sats \ 0 replies \ @justin_shocknet 22h

Don't even need the CBDC, fiat has a built-in kill switch.

Since fiat is a ponzi scheme, the state need only to turn off the printers. Like a game of musical chairs, when the music stops the state/bankers are the only one with a seat.

Debt service destroys money in circulation constantly, hense the constant need to print. Given that, everyone without a considerable amount of productive assets (non-fiat) ends up destitute pretty quickly.

When these destitute people have no where to turn but the state, looking for bread and housing, the state can then dis-intermediate benefits down to just a state issued pod and bug smoothies. Much more cost effective than the subsidy apparatus.

32 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined 23h

The most basic answer is probably that no one in the government has a real incentive to want to stop benefit fraud. Doing something new is a lot of work. Why bother?

37 sats \ 1 reply \ @stack_harder OP 22h

i suppose, plus they can make new jobs for benefit control as well

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 22h

Now you've got the idea.