I don't remember the source but I do recall findings that the costs of investigations into welfare fraud in Germany significantly outweigh the (potential) costs of the fraud itself.

Of course the inefficiency is difficult to prove because it's impossible to correctly measure the amount of fraud that would exist if there were no investigations (the existence of the investigations might discourage fraud in the first place).

Still, it seems pretty intuitive that welfare fraud isn't actually as big a problem as people tend to think. Welfare fraud is one of these problems that are easy to exploit for public outrage. It's relatable ("they steal my (tax) money"), the people doing it are already stigmatised (if you're on welfare you either did something wrong or are simply not trying hard enough), the falsely accused are unlikely to retaliate, it's easily actionable (just add more inspections or simply reduce the benefits) and it's difficult to measure and nearly impossible to solve.

Sure, it may be a non-issue but it so wonderfully exploitable if you're a politician (or a "newspaper" that needs some inciteful headlines).

> The anti abuse/fraud work alone…

There is no concept of benefit fraud in a BI system. Everyone by default qualifies for the same level of BI. Your government paycheck starts at the max value and can only go down from there, which happens when you are paying back that money in the form of tax. The only type of fraud detection needed would be the tax fraud system that already exists.

I'm not saying everything about BI would work (although I hope it does), but the fact that you could cut benefit overhead is self evident I think.

Of course there can be fraud - what if you use multiple identities?

Well, that is already tax fraud correct? Someone already has to check for that. The savings come from all the additional checks you would no longer need to do to see if people are really disabled, what their marital situation is, where they live, etc.

> Of course there can be fraud - what if you use multiple identities?

Either those people are living and will notice not getting their money, or they are dead and there is a problem with enforcement.

Any kind of BI seems contingent on an accurate census. At least in Finland, I believe their census is quite good. Fraud should be very minimal.

In most of European countries, people has an ID card and SS number, and there is a centralized database controlled by the state. A single person cannot have 2 different IDs. At least, it is not something trivial to do.

Here's a reference describing the US situation

http://www.cbpp.org/research/romneys-charge-that-most-federa...

(Also note that basic income proposals usually don't propose replacing all forms of means tested income transfers, including Finland's plan)

I see.

I'm don't really know much about the US case, but that article reads as a somewhat disingenuous response to a very disingenuous statement by and electioneering politician. They define "Benefits & Services" as opposed to "administrative costs" and report the first makes u 90% or more.

I assume that "Benefits & Services" includes various services that might be termed "administrative costs" in everyday talk.

But point taken, maybe this is not such a huge savings.

What kind of fraud do you anticipate?

I believe he's referring to fraud in the current system: inspectors working full-time to catch people claiming welfare while working odd jobs, processes to verify that people are entitled to various benefits that they're claiming, etc.