Okay, a little research showed that I’m wrong about how long the annona lasted. It apparently kept going and even expanded into the middle/late empire.
However, I hold to my other two main claims, that given the small percentage that the inhabitants of Rome itself (and perhaps also later of Constantinople) were of the empire as a whole, free food for them could not have been a huge fiscal burden, and that the army and corruption consumed a MUCH larger percentage of the budget.
Think of it this way. If our national welfare rolls were limited to the poor of DC or NYC, how much of a burden would it be? Not much.
Free food for Rome just wasn’t a big cause of the collapse of the empire. Civil wars and the cost of the army had a LOT more to do with it.
In 58 BC, the patrician-turned-plebeian Clodius Pulcher advanced a popularist political agenda in his bid for the tribunate by offering free grain for the poor. The expense was considerable, and Julius Caesar later reformed the dole. Augustus considered abolishing it altogether, but instead reduced the number of the recipients to 200,000, and perhaps later 150,000.
The official responsible for the provision of the alimenta was the Curator alimentorum. During the empire, this post became an important bureaucratic position to be filled by the senatorial elite prior to achieving a consulship. The last known official to hold this post was Titus Flavius Postumius Quietus, probably during the early 270s.[7]
Later emperors all used free or greatly subsidized grain to keep the populace fed. The political use of the grain supply along with gladiatorial games and other entertainments gave rise to the saying “Bread and circuses”. As the empire continued, the annona became more complex. During the reign of Septimius Severus, olive oil was added to the distribution. During the reign of Aurelian, however, a major reorganization of the alimenta took place. It appears that he ceased to distribute free grain; instead, he issued free bread, and added salt, pork and wine to the dole, which was provided free or at a reduced cost. These measures were continued by successive emperors.[8]
With the devaluation of currency in the course of the third century, the army was paid in rationed supplies (annonae) as well as in specie from the later third century, through a cumbrous administration of collection and redistribution. The role of the state in distributing the annona remained a central feature of its unity and power: “the cessation of this state function in the fifth century was a major factor leading to economic fragmentation, as was the end of the grain requisition for the city of Rome” Averil Cameron notes.[9]
During war the left side of the bell curve, the welfare class, tends to be killed off disproportionately resulting in a slight but measurable population IQ boost. Military need drives the "cutting edge" of technology. Later this new technology is commercialized leading to greater wealth. Short term, military spending leads to hardship but long term it leads to wealth. Instead most nations are destroyed by welfare spending. The United Kingdom is a spectacular example of this. Most history books are written by leftists so the consensus opinion is not tied to the truth.