Benefit fraud - the levels are very low

www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/aug/21/councils-invest-food-banks-welfare-cuts

I agree that fraud, however undesirable should not be mistaken with entitlement. Because we do need to have a sensible debate about whom we can support and it's going to be tough enough already for those who will no longer receive support without them being unfairly branded as fraudsters.

The Coalition government - mainly the Tories - are exploiting the crisis to cut back the size of the state and to public spending.

Given Labour also promised to slash public spending, albeit at a slower rate and reality has forced the coalition to only implement about the same cuts as Labour originally promised. So Ttosca, do you also believe Labour were also planning to exploit the crisis or are they immune from criticism because they are not Tories?

Benefit fraud is a lower than is popularly perceived. However, the main aim of any government's anti-benefit fraud campaign is to cleverly blur the edges between benenfit fraud and the debate on benefit entitlement. Therefore the debate about which cases should/ should not receive benefit is tinged with the suggestion that ALL benenfit entitilement is somehow fruadulent or certainly morally suspect. That is how it is easy for people to overlook certain facts such as DLA not being an out-of-work payment - it's blurring the boundaries in people's minds. Similarly, it is often forgotten that the whole child tax/ working tax system replaced tax cuts which the working parents received in their PAYE income. Although many became able to claim the child tax/ working tax benefits on the one hand, the income tax they paid instantly went up at the time turning many families from tax-payers to benefit receivers in one fell swoop.

Also, the spending cuts are effecting the poorest in society, usually those on benefits, the most. For example, where I live spending cuts have reduced the rural bus service to the nearest city. I live in a town of 12000 people which no longer has a bus service after 8 pm or on Sundays to the nearest place that offers work to most youngsters straight from school, automatically barring them from jobs which require evening or Sunday hours. The bus fares have also gone up. It's the hidden costs of spending cuts such as these that often mean it is unfeasible or even impossible for whole families to find work.

We're back to your tired old argument Ttosca of ah but before the recession we didn't borrow loads. The fact is that we still borrowed. So in fact not only were we spending all the money we had whilst the good times rolled, we still had to borrow.

But at the end of the day we are where we are. And that is an economy which is not growing because of a variety of reasons. And it's doubtful it will grow for some time.

But this thread is about fraud and on that it sounds like we all broadly agree. Fraud is low.

But it costs more to live if you are disabled. Hence DLA. Most of the people working and getting DLA use their DLA to enable them to work.

amicissimma The name and purpose of the benefit is irrelevant. If it is being fraudulently claimed then that is a matter for the courts.

I may be misinterpreting what you are saying but are you suggesting that if an individual is capable of working they should be excluded from any disability benefits (DLA)?

amicissimma I think part of the problem, and I hope you don't mind me pointing out that your post sounds like you've made the same mistake, is that people are confusing being in receipt of disability benefit with their ability to work. The two are totally different and should be treated accordingly. It is perfectly possible that a person may be able to hold down a job despite having an underlying health issue such as, plucking an example out of thin air, a heart murmur. In this instance, they may be in receipt of the mobility component of DLA to enable them to get around without exerting themselves too much. This is an in work disability benefit and there is nothing fraudulent about this sort of claim providing that there is a genuine underlying health reason. They may end up committing fraud if their condition improves and they fail to inform the authorities or if they have lied about the severity of their condition. The only way around this, that I can see, is to have regular assessments - this isn't popular and mistakes tend to be commonplace but I can't see any alternative.

At the other end of the scale, there are those unfortunates whose disabilities preclude them from working at all. For these people, an out of work benefit needs to be paid to make up for their lack of income. Again, if their condition improves and they fail to notify the authorities, or they lied and simply faked their condition, then they should be weeded out and punished.

I don't think that the families of genuinely disabled benefit claimants consider the chancers to be anything other than scum. It is for the few rotten apples who try to game the system that everyone has to be inconvenienced with assessments. Any anger they might have may be due to the high number of errors that these assessment boards make and the reams of paperwork that needs completing before you can appeal against a bad decision.

I do not know anyone claiming fraudulantly.
I also wonder what happened to the 50 people that were blind.

Oh, and disability benefits are paid to people who are working, and guess what it's not fraud. DLA IS NOT AN OUT OF WORK BENEFIT.

amicissimma Because it's frequently those in receipt of said benefits who should the loudest and proclaim that fraud doesn't exist. And there are always calls of "what about my severely disabled child who needs 24 hour around the clock care?" as if they really and truly believe that debate and annoyance is centered around those cases.

I reckon if each and every mumsnetter named and shamed on a list here just 1 or 2 people they know are claiming "fraudulently" then the list would be quite the eye-opener.

ttosca I see once again that you are quoting US statistics and implying that they apply to Britain. Perhaps they do, but I doubt it. By voting in probably the most left leaning president in their history, it is obvious that America will be diverting more and more of its resources into government spending programmes typically paid for, as you so helpfully point out in your link, by the taxation from individuals rather than corporations. Still, that's socialism for you - it certainly explains why the average American's slice of the pie is shrinking and why Joe Shmoe is poorer.

"Poor people are not your enemy. Your blind or disable neighbour is not your enemy."

I know. I don't see how you can imply that I think this from the post that I wrote. I've always supported the poor and the disabled and if you can find any post of mine on this site which states to the contrary please feel free to repost it for all to see.

"If you want to know where all your money went, it didn't go towards the poorest. It went to the top 5% who now own over two-thirds of the world's wealth."

T'was ever this way - unless you go back far enough into history when it was even more asymmetric. It may be far from ideal but it's nothing new and certainly hasn't sneaked up on us since 2008, Maggie Thatcher or even the time of Christ.

"They are your targets"

No they are not. My targets are meritocracy, a decent education for all, giving everyone an opportunity, getting people to stand on their own two feet and taking responsibility for their own lives. Your idea of making the rich poor won't make the poor rich.

"We're not at 11% deficit because of public spending, either through welfare or anything else. We're at 11% deficit because of the financial crisis caused by banking fraudsters, and the subsequent recession, loss of tax receipts, and rising unemployment costs. We were not at 11% deficit prior to the crisis."

Yes, yes, yes, so you keep saying. It was all them evil bankers to blame. Simples.

Except that you are not telling the full story. We were running a deficit before the crash. We had a growing debt before the crash. We had well over 2 million declared unemployed (who knows the real number?) before the crash. Quite simply, the system was already broken, the crash, when it came, smashed the life out of what was left of our economy. There is no sign that the economy is going to spring back into life any time soon so, barring a miracle, one has to accept that we either make some radical changes now, or we carry on borrowing 10-11% of GDP a year every year until we run out of money to borrow.

No amount of benefit fraud or tax avoidance posturing will get us out of the predicament we are in.

The benefit fraud rate may well be small (we have no real way of knowing without some form of audit) but it is still a legitimate area for the government to clamp down on. Any benefit cheating is wrong in the same way as any other criminal activity is wrong - its prevalence is irrelevant.

All other talk about benefits must, by definition, be about legitimately awarded benefits. We could argue until the cows come home about the current set up, its effects on the wider world and how, come the revolution, we'd all fix it, but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that benefit claimants are, predominantly, entitled to what they claim. I don't think anyone is trying to bash either the working disabled or the non-working disabled.

One thing is clear though; we cannot carry on as we are borrowing 10% of GDP indefinitely. The books will, one day, need to be balanced. Eliminating fraud (at both the benefit fraud and the tax evasion ends of the scale) will help, but on its own is no fix for the huge mess we are in. Only major structural reform of ALL government spending will do - until we face up to this unpalatable fact of life, we are standing like an ostrich with our heads in the sand.

I was replying to the post regarding why it is fraud if someone is able to work but does not. My point was that the definition of 'able to work' varies from person to person. It was not an attack on the ill & disabled. It was simply trying to demonstrate that there is a big grey area. Like I said, everyone believes the line should be drawn somewhere else but the line must be drawn somewhere. I know many people who work whilst having disabilities but I know not everyone can. That was my point. I'm not bashing, simply saying the situation is complex.

My further point is that we simply cannot afford the status quo. And that we need to be honest about this. Sticking our head in the sands doesn't work. That's not to say we scrap all benefits. Not at all and not for a second. Just that we need to be more selective. Not out of choice....out of necessity.

The usual response now is to say that I'm benefit bashing, uncompassionate, right wing Tory wanker.

But the elephant in the room is that we cannot support everyone that we currently do. Like I say, that's not me picking on the ill and disabled. Not all my family are fit & healthy. Neither are all my friends. I don't live in some right wing bubble where only the strong survive and to hell with the rest.

We've such a big deficit that a few nip/tucks to our tax regime won't plug it. In the same way that benefit fraud won't and neither will raising taxes on the rich.

In my opinion, continuing to focus on benefit fraud and tax avoidance by the rich are the economic equivalent of a placebo.

The original assertion by Ttosca is that benefit fraud rates are low. Yes they are. But that doesn't mean we don't have a problem and that we should carry on regardless.

Niceguy why talk about Ill and disabled people at all then?

Why?
What do you want them to do!

Pick up their beds and walk?

If you are concerned about those who are readily available to take work and those who employers are willing to employ, talk about them

High unemployment for those with disabilities is more to do with societal views of disabilities than unwillingness on the part of disabled people.

It's hard enough to get a nursery to accept a child with complex needs, how the hell do we get employers to want to give people with disabilities a job?

The current campaign to demonise people on disability related benefits is not exactly helping the cause is it?
Disabled and bone idle?

if my oh loses his job how will he compete with those who can walk? Despite his 0 sick days he is seen as an expensive liability.

What about those who need communicators, adtations etc. Jesus the noise that comes from businesses protesting about pc gone mad whenever equality laws are discussed.

Wow a benefit bashing thread on MN...surely not...my eyes must be betraying me!

Anyone for benefit bashing bingo?

niceguy are you suggesting my DS deafbliind since birth is able to work? Please show a bit of compassion

Yes I agree that DLA is not an out of work benefit. My overall point is that as a society we need to take a long hard look at whom our benefits are currently supporting and ask ourselves if this is the best use of our very limited money.

And I'm not just talking about those who are ill/disabled. I'm talking about all benefits. Unemployed, those on income support, pensioners. We need to look at the entire system. If we are serious about tackling the deficit, tinkering around the edges won't do it.

Funnily enough, the three people I can think of immediately who claim DLA I know through...erm, my/our workplace. Yes, agreed; it is NOT an out of work benefit.