To think this “crackdown” on benefit fraud is absolutely pathetic

[MissLou0]

We lose hundreds of billions from tax avoidance compared to 1 billion on benefit fraud and nothing is done about it, because those are the Tory donors. Michelle Mone just stole £28 million from taxpayers for her PPE scam, she’s not in trouble, and she of course also hides her hundreds of millions offshore.

We lose a small amount from benefit fraud, and as a result everyone who claims any sort of benefit including disability benefits banks are going to be monitored.

The graph below doesn’t even scratch the surface of how much is lost to tax avoidance. For example Rupert Murdoch is worth £17 billion and he hasn’t paid tax in years, personal tax or on his businesses. And he’s ONE person. These people are not targeted yet the most desperate and vulnerable are.

This is completely ignored by the media as the majority of newspaper owners are hiding their money offshore.

I’m in a situation where I don’t need to claim any benefits but I have family who are disabled who have had to fight for even the tiniest amount to live on, and they are now having to deal with this invasion of privacy which will make not even 0.000001% of what cracking down on tax avoidance would.

Where do you get that figure?

Is it this? If so, that's 2011 and is ALL fraud

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7a506eed915d1a6421c970/fraud-focus-feb11.pdf

Do tell if you have another source.

Totally agree, espically when SOME of those claiming benefits actully earn more money not working, than the actual people who work and pay the taxes to enable the benefits to be paid in the first place. Before anybody slates me for saying this, I will tell you about my friends daughter, who is an unemployed single mum of 3. Never worked since leaving school (she is 26), yet she has just returned from a family holiday to Florida, all paid for by her benefits. How many hard working parents can afford such a holiday.

Tbh, tax avoidance is monitored too, but you only hear about the big earners/millionaires. My dh is an accountant, and he says hmrc do spot checks on the self employed often. I absolutely agree that benefits should be monitored. Why shouldn’t they? It’s like you’re suggesting that benefit claimants should be allowed to get away with fraud, because it’s not as much as what’s lost on tax avoidance? It’s all relative - probably similar numbers of people in both camps, but obviously tax avoidance funds per person are going to be a lot more.

First they came for the benefit claimants, and I was not a benefit claimant, so I said nothing...

Tax avoidance is people doing legal things to keep more of what they’ve earned/generated.
Benefit fraud is people doing illegal things to steal from others.
quite a clear difference to me.

I agree that we should make it harder for people to avoid tax, close loop holes etc. though.

Who cares? Might be child maintenance or somebody has paid for her.

Why can the cms put this much effort into getting absent parents to pay?

This.
And I don’t know why people often say that the true amount of benefit fraud is relatively tiny. Maybe it is, but by definition the only cases known about are those that have been investigated and proved.

It’s noticeable that whenever a MNer posts to say they know for certain that someone is committing benefit fraud, should they report it? - the vast majority of replies say keep your nose out, MYOB.

But of course tax loopholes for the relatively (or stinking) rich should be abolished. The U.K. needs all the tax it can get.

It doesn't help the government have started lumping official error, which has nothing to do with claimant fraud, into the mix of numbers.😗

They are going to move all tax credit benefits to universal credit BUT my husband doesn't qualify for UC because of his age (like thousnads of others) so will loose a hell of a lot of money plus the "benefits" such as free dental

If its because he reaches State pension age, won’t he then qualify for Pension Credit?

They’ve always conveniently done that.

In the same way the number of people taken off disability benefits never has a “oh but this number won their appeals” later update.

his industrial injury benefit puts him over pension credit limit

The person you describe is probably in receipt of housing benefit and saved all year/for years to pay for it. The two people can’t be compared, she likely doesn’t have the income to facilitate nursery costs/a mortgage/childcare/a car/extra curricular activities/kids clubs/many new clothes etc etc etc. If those who worked go without those things like people on benefits, but still don’t have the funds for a holiday, then you can start complaining. But look at yourself to think someone out of work should never go on holiday or have anything nice. they’re human beings too. They have a life

I have to laugh at the posters who are so convinced that any money "saved" by stopping fraudsters will somehow be redistributed to the genuine claimants.

It won't. This is about bringing down the benefits bill, not about fairer distribution. Oh and getting votes.
Your taxes won't go down either fyi.

The figure is always given as ‘fraud and error’ which includes all DWP overpayments. No way of knowing which figure is higher.

This. Underpayment of benefit is also huge, but the campaign to encourage people to claim what they’re entitled to is half hearted to say the least. The British public are ultimately going to be responsible for pulling the rug out from under themselves if they don’t stop falling for government rhetoric on welfare and realise that it’s designed so that while we’re snooping on our neighbours and shopping people for ‘not looking disabled enough’ we’re leaving the super rich alone to enjoy their wealth. Yes, as with any other system there is fraud, and it needs to be dealt with, but not by making it harder for genuine claimants to get the support they need. Which is inevitably what happens.

If you want to be mad at the benefits system, be mad at the Tories for designing it with means tested thresholds set so low there are sometimes only pennies separating those who qualify and those who don’t. Or for wanting to single out working age disabled DLA claimants. That’s how we ended up with the PIP system, which judges disabled claimants much more harshly because they are of working age - despite the fact that disability benefits like PIP, DLA and AA are payable whether you’re in work or not. It was badly thought out, badly designed, introduced in a rush on Iain Duncan Smith’s disastrous watch as Secretary of State, and utilises an unfair points based system policed by ‘disability assessors’ with no specialist knowledge and minimal training.

Inevitably there are huge amounts of claimants wrongly assessed who have to go to expensive tribunals to get the benefits to which they are entitled, and the end result is a ballooning bill for the tax payer - which PIP was supposedly introduced to reduce. And guess who gets the blame - yep, you’ve guessed it, disabled people. Tory divide and rule at it’s finest, and judging by some of the comments on this particular thread, it’s alive and well on MN.

They’ve been doing this for a long time, but have never offered up individual numbers for DWP error.

How interesting, and thank you for the info you've put on here. I believe that Benefits & Work (the advice website) are trying to collect this sort of data, and do regular newsletters. I'll have a look later on.

(I used their website to assist with my own PIP claim, and it was invaluable. And I only used the free part.)

OK. I knew UC was only for those of working age, I didn’t know that tax credits were payable after state pension age.

Yes it’s legal because the government don’t clamp down on it. They could easily put laws in place to stop it.

@Yourcatisnotsorry

If you earn £100,000 per year you have to pay £45,000 in tax you can’t just “avoid” paying it yet if you are Rupert Murdoch you can pay 0 business tax and that’s ok? And keeping non Dom status? This is all to keep their donors happy and nothing else.

How does someone "earn" more benefits by not working? I don't work (unable to) and my sole income is UC, which is less than £800 per month. Someone on minimum wage would be taking home more than that, and probably having their wages topped up by UC too.

Well said.

Something like 60% of claimants get their original ruling overturned at tribunal which is a huge amount! This just goes to show how flawed the assessments are plus, as you rightly point out, all these tribunals are funded by the tax payer!

https://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/pip-appeal-numbers-up-by-almost-120