Private companies checking benefit claimants

[Hammy02]

David Cameron is going to work with Experion to check that benefit claimants are not spending money that they should not have. I think it's a great idea. Why should taxpayers pay for someone who doesn't work to have Sky TV, a car or a huge TV? If they can afford these, either the benefits they are receiving are too high or they have another source of income. Surely benefits are to keep people out of poverty and that is all?

Some BA

Some people think like taht

I don't for sure

If I did i'd calim all the money I was entiled to

Dh would give up being self employed and claim benefits and get mroe cash (would work for our fairly unique position of 2 sn kids and him also being a FT student)

Absolutely accept opinions with awareness of motivation, but don't discount every opinion based on one perception.

You donj't know this but I studied ethics as part of my degree (in religion and philosophhy)- that's not soemone willing to think and consider.

The fact that I attempted to engage with you shows that as well I think.

ANd you know- for those of us who are genuine, the false claims and feckless people adversely affect our every day. We don't want them either, why would I want a system where getting CA makes people at me?

And a fina one (see? I am truly bad at leaving these things!) wrt to some benefits claimant input is everything. How would you set a dla rate (remembering that dla is based on need not income and often paid alongside work) without doing it?

dp

no

And Dp I take it you know who I am now (don't use the name please)

Of course I know who you are....you know I wont out you

Would never out anyone...(you know I'm only joking about BA..)

There's very few people I would recognise on here from previous names...you have to have a really distinctive posting style to be remembered imo...

I don't mean just how you type, I mean in what you say and the threads you hang out on...

Barmy, I pay lots of tax, as does dh, but my views are the absolute opposite of yours. In fact I think that many benefits are too low, especially when there are children in a household.

Do you have to listen to me?

Yep DP.... distinctive style and crap typing

rainbow I recall reading an article recently, Grauniad I suspect it was, about how low the benefits some people actually receive are, having to live off under £70 a week including a contribution towards rent etc. It isn't much and there is absolutely nothing to allow anyone to assume that those people are not long term contributors: being a net contributor is a snapshot thing, but for real value has to be a whole life sum if you want any judgements whatsoever to be amde (excepting anyone who is disabled etc).

"I think, on reflection, what I was driving at was the rather obvious point that "turkeys don't vote for christmas""

Yes, and that would be the point we are arguing against, as benefit claimants are still human! Not "Turkeys". Do you apply this logic to all parts of life? Say you were to pay to put an elderly relative in a home would you deny them any say as it wasn't their money?

Let's just bring back workhouses, rock-breaking and oakum-picking for anyone on benefits shall we, and have done?

Getting Experian in and checking what they are spending 'our' money on will be a great deterent in the meantime, though. Anyone else thinking of recklessly losing their job, or becoming ill, or caring for members of their family will know that when they sign on, they can hand over any expectation of being treated with dignity, compassion, humanity etc because they are probably 'scroungers'/undeserving, too, aren't they? And because we can't afford dignity in the current climate. That's what rich people have. Because they can afford it.

Perhaps we can do our own bit for the Big Society by taking it in turns to scrutinise the shopping of anyone we 'know' on benefits near us, so we can tell them where they are going wrong, why it's making them fat and unhealthy (because they'll be that too, won't they?) ask them to account for each penny they spend and let them know that we resent every mouthful they cram in to their 'undeserving' mouths, because we earned that money (even though they've probably paid NI and that my shopping basket wouldn't pass a moment of similar scrutiny). And then ask them where their luxury holiday homes, ski chalets etc are, so we can holiday there.

And the bankers need it more than they do, clearly.

To save Conservative think-tanks any more work, can I also suggest that we give benefit claimants badges when they sign on, too, so right-minded, wage-earning, responsible people like us can pelt cut fruit at them to make sure they know their place in life and don't get ideas (or a phone) above their station. (Btw, will the government publish an agreed ratio of electronic goods-to-worthiness? Just so I can be sure I'm making the right judgements when I pass them)

Until they find a job again, when - hey presto - they transform back into worthwhile members of society and collect their flatscreen tv, Sky etc to show that they've rejoined the human race. And that their opinions can finally be valued by people who really 'matter'.

Come on, then Dave and Nick. Save us all the fannying around and bring the workhouses back.
(At the very least, just think of the time we'd save on threads like this... )

Ffs.

Rant over.

Hiding this thread.

They can't discose what we spend on- not without disclosing same informations themselves anyway (rule of reciprocity)

And if they could just shop in cash.

They will see if you hve a partner living with you that you are pretending dos not; a secret bank account; new credit agreement on a bmw.

They (and I didnt know this, my info was old and related to the inirial online experian trial as my then boss was involved) do have copies of any forms you ever filled in for finance detailng earnings etc to pick up disparities

If they could see individual transactions it would be pointless- for example someone on teh radio said 'You can pick up fraudulent IB claims if they are paying for a set of agrden tools'

Er no you can't ! Apart from the fact that IB does not necessarily equate to physical impairment, youc an't possibly tell if it's a gift for the kids or for a neighbour to do the agrden with as a favour.

£125 leaves my account monthly at certain times of the year: for an autism MA. But it doesn't show autism (clarly related to the disability and my boy's care needs, although paid for with my entire CA rather than DLA) and could be anything.

They won't know if we buy vodka (yuck) or anything (ubnless a credit agreement is taken out)

And wrt to the earlier posters who said benefits should be an absolute miniomum

Are you sure?

What about any credit agreements people are entered into when they become eligible? Should they default? If you ahev (eg) a 2 year mobile phone contract then you either pay, or you default- adn we all know where defaulting gets us as a nation!

And yes some people sue the tiny surplus as a source of alcohol or drugs or whatever: far mroe put it back in case the cooker breaks or the kids shoes leak.

I wonder if BA has children at all. He sounds a lot like someone I knew who never had kids, he just felt entitled to comment on those who did.

"What about any credit agreements people are entered into when they become eligible?"

Quite. Right now me and DP probably look like we are doing better than we are due to paying every month for a high speed broadband connection - aren't we lucky! Except we signed up for a 2 year contract before everything went tits up and now can't get out of it.

You need to know all the facts before you can judge someone's spending patterns.

This is purely headline-grabbing stuff. According to one article I read, more money is lost through bureaucracy and bureaucratic mistakes than benefit fraud.

However, on a moral level, I do think people should be prosecuted for it - it is fraud. There was one case I encountered through work, where an individual was claiming unemployment benefit, but it turned out that their monthly income was actually aground £3k, cash in hand from renting out properties. They were evading (which is illegal) taxes, so not putting in AND taking out at the same time, when they didn't need to. So disgusting. Then there was the other charming individual who was also illegally claiming benefits and evading taxes by doing everything cash in hand (this was also to prevent his ex from getting more child support money. I felt very tempted to go and chop off bits of his anatomy).

I can't believe BA was arguing against minimum wage and benefits. Not a particularly caring and sharing individual.

But don't you know Abs taking away minimum wage will force employers to put their wages up

(You've got to wonder why it was introduced in the first place don't you..)

LOL swc (did you see I mentioned you today? Did Ya? >)

Where do we stand on those who are entitled to benefits yet don't claim? Being that unclaimed benefits amount to far more per year than the amount lost to benefit fraud?

Are they allowed to eat organic flatscreen pheasant?

Yes tethersend, and they may also eat pre-cut fruit from an M&S plastic carton.

I dont claim mt CTB (yet) where so we stand?

SWC have I sent you my AS dMA presentations yet? Can if it would help in any small way?

And I mentioned you on here in the context of someone who is politicall different to me and with whom I often clash but also like and respect and get on with outside specific forum areas

AS in, just because you disagree with soemone politics doesnt mean you ahve to take it outside the debate

Done, SWC

I read the article earlier today and thought is was an ok idea. It said this money could be used to fund x nurses and schools - would rather my taxes went on that so the scheme sounds good.

Hopefully as well as picking up spending habits beyond the benefit amount it may also catch any other people who accidently use the address - many people claim to be single yet their partners stay over very often.

happy it cannot pick up spending habaits above credit agreements- thats not possible udner credit referencing laws

However the idea is that single aprents claiming when living with someone / etc is exactly who they will locate

rewciprocity
The stumbling block for in depth account access is the one about contributing what you receive