The optimal amount of fraud is non-zero
I feel like this starts with an agreeable premise. Some fraud is egregious, costly, and/or easy to detect. These low-hanging or high-impact cases are most worth pursuing. At some point you reach diminishing returns, where the amount of time / effort / capital you're putting in to eliminating fraud outstrips the losses from the fraud itself.I don't know that I agree with the ethical conclusion that the optimal amount of fraud is therefore non-zero. The leap from "anti-fraud efforts are expensive" to these sentences in the final paragraph was not, in my opinion, convincingly made here:>We should, as a society, accept non-zero amounts of benefits fraud. We should accept non-zero amounts of cheating on taxes.