tackling fraud

[eFestivals]

Dave Moron has said he wants more use of credit reference agencies to detect fraudulent benefit claims.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10922261

Aside from it being a great way to channel yet more of taxpayers money into the hands of private firms (the major objective of the tories this time around), where exactly would this approach actually get them?

Has it suddenly become illegal for a benefit claimant to be honest, to pay off any borrowings exactly as scheduled, and to not have bad debts? On benefits or not, people are perfectly entitled to borrow, and their credit rating is related to how they handle their debts, not how much money they have. And even if they're managing to service debts above their benefit level, why does that have to mean fraud? They could be selling off possessions to cover payments, or their parents or working children could be helping them out.

But that aside, benefit fraud & error is believed to cost the country around £5Bn a year - a large amount, granted, but also only a tiny fraction compared to the amount of tax fraud that's believed to happen, which is £50Bn+.

So why go after the small-fry while still giving the much greater criminals almost free-reign? The benefits checking continually gets stepped up, while the exact opposite happens with tax checking. :angry:

Edited August 10, 2010 by eFestivals

[RABun]

According to the chart on the news report only £1bn of the 5 is due to fraud. The rest is down to error, so how will spending more money going after benefit cheats help the deficit by any great deal?

Also Experian are shite - it took them 6 months to register that i was actually on the electoral roll which adversely affected my own credit score.

However they don't just assess you for poor credit history they do keep track of how much you spend on credit and outstanding debt, not just whether you are making timely payments or not.

I suspect they will be able to report based on the amount of money a person pays to their creditors against how much they claim in benefit.

[eFestivals]

However they don't just assess you for poor credit history they do keep track of how much you spend on credit and outstanding debt, not just whether you are making timely payments or not.

I suspect they will be able to report based on the amount of money a person pays to their creditors against how much they claim in benefit.

yep, I touched on that - and it means absolutely naff all in itself. It proves nothing, certainly not benefit fraud. All it proves is that some people will do all they can to honour their debts.

Meanwhile, the tax fraudsters keep on raking it in - and paying for tory party campaigning. But it's nothing to do with that for why they're not going after the far greater tax fraudsters, oh no.

[llcoolphil]

Dave Moron has said he wants more use of credit reference agencies to detect fraudulent benefit claims.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10922261

Aside from it being a great way to channel yet more of taxpayers money into the hands of private firms (the major objective of the tories this time around), where exactly would this approach actually get them?

Has it suddenly become illegal for a benefit claimant to be honest, to pay off any borrowings exactly as scheduled, and to not have bad debts? On benefits or not, people are perfectly entitled to borrow, and their credit rating is related to how they handle their debts, not how much money they have. And even if they're managing to service debts above their benefit level, why does that have to mean fraud? They could be selling off possessions to cover payments, or their parents or working children could be helping them out.

But that aside, benefit fraud & error is believed to cost the country around £5Bn a year - a large amount, granted, but also only a tiny fraction compared to the amount of tax fraud that's believed to happen, which is £50Bn+.

So why go after the small-fry while still giving the much greater criminals almost free-reign? The benefits checking continually gets stepped up, while the exact opposite happens with tax checking. :angry:

[eFestivals]

But it plays well to the idiots who think it that their own thievery makes them lesser scum than other thieves.

corrected for you.

Edited August 10, 2010 by eFestivals

[Pogues Mcgogues]

A cynical me would suggest it may be an attempt to make the wellfare state cost more, make it seem unable to be ruled, out of control even, therefore giving an argument against the wellfare state as a whole.

I realy think this is the start of the attemtped destruction of what we know to be the wellfare state. It realy had to be stopped, one way or another!

[eFestivals]

I realy think this is the start of the attemtped destruction of what we know to be the wellfare state. It realy had to be stopped, one way or another!

you're over 30 years late with that idea.

[Pogues Mcgogues]

you're over 30 years late with that idea.

[eFestivals]

Nope.

You are you know. I guess you need to sue your politics lecturer.

[llcoolphil]

It realy had to be stopped, one way or another!

[Pogues Mcgogues]

You are you know. I guess you need to sue your politics lecturer.

[eFestivals]

My study in politics was the workings (and history) of the European Union and the developments seen within it.

Oh, right.

In which case, perhaps it's better to hold off spouting off until you're informed enough to know what you're talking about?

The tories since Thatcher's time have been focused on demolishing the welfare state. That was her whole bloody political point - the end of the "post war consensus" (which had had the tories supporting the idea of the welfare state), and its replacement by unfettered capitalism.

Just because she didn't knock it down in one fell swoop doesn't mean that's not the aim. It would be a very foolish politician indeed who went further than the people of this country could stand ... as Thatcher got to find out with her attempts at the poll tax.

Dave Moron has a different angle of attack this time around (to leech taxpayers services - and money - into private hands), but the purpose is the same - to undermine the welfare state by stealth.

[lost]

I'd hope the liberals would have something to say about this, its pretty authoritarian and the last thing we need is more merging of public and private sector. I've also heard mentioned that they are thinking of doing the same with banks and deducting higher rate tax on savings at source, then you'll have to claim it back if they get it wrong.

[rabid]

I'd hope the liberals would have something to say about this

[llcoolphil]

I was wondering about that myself, haven't heard anything from them though.

[oafc0000]

They are in such a weak position in the polls, they haven't really got much to say about anything

[llcoolphil]

Still spouting bollocks that it was a great idea them getting in bed with the tories like you was a few months ago ?

[gratedenini]

I think its about perception.

During the election there were discussion on our local news about where money should be spent/cut.

On every program--- people said that benefits should be cut.

Fact is--people who are working and are reasonably or very well off,mostly think that everyone on benefits is a scrounger and a lazy bastard.

Fact---I know people on benefits who have all the trappings of people in well paid jobs ie cars,foreign hols,baskets of M&S vegetables,skyTV etc etc. How can that be?

I get £48 a week and me rent/council tax paid. I`m lucky if me electric doesnt run out and i live proper day to day.

In my experience---it is not easy on benefit.

The arguement is that it shouldnt be easier being on benefit. I agree. We now have in this country a culture of expectation.... that the govt should provide etc. Err nah!

We cant have folks starving and being on the streets and in that respect..i personally have paid into the system for 35yrs...so have no qualms about taking me £50.

Howvere---these people who seem to be getting loadsa money.. well thats just wrong.

Benefit Fraud is a sore point with most people in the country isnt it...but as has been pointed out...the amount of tax not being paid is far far more in terms of £££s but its not perceived as being as bad.

Den (still) Officially in Poverty

[fur_q]

According to the chart on the news report only £1bn of the 5 is due to fraud. The rest is down to error, so how will spending more money going after benefit cheats help the deficit by any great deal?

[llcoolphil]

The arguement is that it shouldnt be easier being on benefit. I agree.

[eFestivals]

I think its about perception.

During the election there were discussion on our local news about where money should be spent/cut.

On every program--- people said that benefits should be cut.

Fact is--people who are working and are reasonably or very well off,mostly think that everyone on benefits is a scrounger and a lazy bastard.

Fact---I know people on benefits who have all the trappings of people in well paid jobs ie cars,foreign hols,baskets of M&S vegetables,skyTV etc etc. How can that be?

I get £48 a week and me rent/council tax paid. I`m lucky if me electric doesnt run out and i live proper day to day.

In my experience---it is not easy on benefit.

The arguement is that it shouldnt be easier being on benefit. I agree. We now have in this country a culture of expectation.... that the govt should provide etc. Err nah!

We cant have folks starving and being on the streets and in that respect..i personally have paid into the system for 35yrs...so have no qualms about taking me £50.

Howvere---these people who seem to be getting loadsa money.. well thats just wrong.

Benefit Fraud is a sore point with most people in the country isnt it...but as has been pointed out...the amount of tax not being paid is far far more in terms of £££s but its not perceived as being as bad.

Den (still) Officially in Poverty

while there's no doubt some people/families eternally on benefits which have "all the trappings", even by the govts own figures (the £1Bn they say is fraud) the number of these is actually quite small.

They'll be a much greater number with those 'standard possessions' (standard for those who are earning) who will have been working and will have only recently become unemployed, and so will still have the things they'd acquired when earning. I'd be surprised if many people thought that these should be required to sell those possessions and spend that money on their survival before they're permitted to claim benefits. Just like you, they'll view it as their entitlement after paying into the system for a number of years.

While I'd like there to be an easy way to stop any fraudulent claims, the simple fact is that any attempt to stop the fraud will also end up impacting on genuine claimants, and I don't think ultimately that would be a worthwhile outcome.

As I've said at the start of this thread, there's far better targets than benefit claimants for action by the govt in recovering money that should be theirs. The heart of the issue is the amount that can be recovered or not paid out in the first place to the benefit of all taxpayers, and not the manner of those people making that illicit gain.

If any govt is serious about getting the money that should be theirs, then the logical way to attack it is at the biggest target first. It's f**k all good to anyone to gain £1Bn but lose £50Bn.

[gratedenini]

Exactly. Thing is the govt want to be seen as taking a hard line against the people who are perceived to be wasters.

I think the percentage of true wasters is very very small compared to the genuine folks.

Wages / benefits. It is probably impossible to get a situation where one would get the same or more benefit for working.

It is an awful scenario when you look at a job at Min Wage but when all comes to all... you end up worse off because of transport costs, maybe having to pay Council Tax and/or Rent etc.

Of course ---you may get Working Tax Credit and/or Back to Work Credits BUT... BUT--- these are also benefits are they not???

All I know, is that it is nearly impossible to survive on the base level of Benefit. Gas, Electric,Water and then food leaves very little change if any out of £50 a week. The concept of buying clothes or shampoo or razor blades for instance is alien.

Now... i say the above with the most MASSIVE of BUTs.

And that BUT is--- this is not Haiti,Chile,Pakistan or Niger (to name a few).

Most of us have a roof over our heads and are not starving to death...and thats the context I use.

den

[feral chile]

I get so annoyed over this. Targeting people who are struggling to manage and letting off those greedy fraudsters who could well afford to pay their way is morally corrupt.

[gratedenini]

I get so annoyed over this. Targeting people who are struggling to manage and letting off those greedy fraudsters who could well afford to pay their way is morally corrupt.

Edited August 13, 2010 by gratedenini

[gratedenini]

I didn`t read it as tax fraudsters... I read it as benefit fraudsters. Thats what i based me reply on anyway.

I commented earlier about the amount of tax evasion that seems to be reletively ignored...but I think it is correct to say that the general public feel that benefit fraud is somehow worse than tax evasion.

In pure monetary terms...this of course is wrong...and if the govt actually were looking for revenue as such---they surely would be better off putting more resources into the tax dodgers.

If I were able to fraudulently claim double the amount of benefit I receive... you, my fellow countrymen would be £2500 a year worse off. Perspective or what?

den,looking into fraud