>>>Basically, a person can either agree or disagree with an opponent, and/or try to explain positions; but brushing aside an opinion by pretense of "links" is not the best discourse.
>>
>>But opinions weren't the issue when I asked for cites. People asserted that there are a significant number of people gaming the welfare system. I acknowledged that such people exist, but asked for some evidence that it's a large enough percentage to warrant distrusting all who are on welfare or changing the system. No one has offered any such evidence, just anecdotes. As you know, the plural of anecdote is not data.
>>
>>Tamar
>
>Do you suggest to catch all abusers before any measures could be taken against them? What kind of entity would you assign for this task?
>I can give you more specific example. There are multiple cases (i.e. anecdotal by your definition) when government-subsidized housing is subleased; clear abuse. When housing authority decides to fight it, it sends a letter to lawful leaseholder asking him/her to come to the office with 'proof' that he really lives there, i.e. a bill with the name. That's it. How many abusers do you think could be caught by this sophisticated procedure, and how much would you rely on 'data' collected by it?

I, of course, think that when we discover actual fraud, we should go after it, whether that's simply cutting off the aid or prosecuting. I suspect that economists know how to estimate total fraud based on the enforcement effort made and the amount of fraud found.

Tamar