Plans to catch benefit cheats

[boiledegg1]

Guardian article

I'm all for tackling benefit fraud but is this the right way?

That is just an assumption you have made because it suits your point of view.

I do not have double standards that is all.

You do not understsnd why this is an issue. Bankers and "the rich" snd tax evaders do not care about benefit fraud. Those of average or low income do. They cthat their money is being abused at both ends o the spectrum. It's futile to ptretend this is not so.

Well done custardo and lowrib! I'm not sure many of u are aware how little people get in benefits anyway. When newspapers talk of people getting £20k plus, most of that could be frm housing benefit. They may only have £40-£60 to live on, pay their electricity bill, buy food and clothes! I know I've been there. When I was pregnant with dd I was in temporary housing from the council and the rent was £305 per week! That housing benefit went straight back to local government who lined their coffers!

Benefit cheating is not right but don't think the cheats are the scurge either. Tax evaders from the upper classes cost the tax payer more but sun and daily mail readers prefer to point fingers at their neighbours!

Appletrees you have inadvertently hit the nail on the head.

Indeed the bankers the rich and tax evaders probably could't care less about benefit cheats.

I am suggesting that perhaps you should care a little more about what the rich are up to, as they affect your life more, yet nothing is being done to curb them. Does this not trouble you?

However if you spend your time worrying fraud at the bottom end of the scale, and not questioning what the rich are up to, the end result will be less money in your pocket, more crime, less help from the state should you need it. I'm suggesting that elements within the government are not even that concerned about benefit cheats. They are very well aware that if they create a bogey man in society, then people will blame that bogey man instead of looking at what the real problems are, and the rich cheats will be free to carry on regardless.

This is not paranoia, this is politics. This is a tried and tested method, which the right wing use again and again - if you blame the vulnerable in society for society's problems, the vulnerable usually don't have a voice and can't speak up for themselves, and the public are diverted from the real issues. Pat bogey men have included black people / Irish in the old days. More recently single mothers (remember that in the 80s?) and immigrants.
See this page on victime blaming for more on this idea.

The tories do not really care that much about benefit cheats. They are encouraging this to be an emotive issue because they have an agenda. They care more about cutting benefits in general (as they don't believe in the welfare state) and distracting our attention from the fact they are on the side of the rich and so are going to do nothing substantial to tackle fraud / dodgy financial dealings among the rich, which directly affect you! (See the banking crisis).

Past bogey men. Gah!

If you want to resent someone who is costing you money, may I suggest Lord Ashcroft? Major Tory donor, billionaire, has been sitting in the Lords making the laws we have to obey - including setting tax rates - yet has been avoiding UK tax by claiming non-dom status. And the Tories have been lying about his tax affairs for years.

The point has been on here by several posters that the government should be going after the big cat fraudsters. Yes. Absolutely. Of course they should. But one path does not negate the need for the other. Fraudsters at all level should be taken to task.

I said earlier that I would rate this initiative on how much it saved vs how much it cost to implement. I believe there is another value though. By showing other potential fraudsters (including but not limited to both benefits cheats and fat cats in the banking industry) we may discourage other from taking their path. And that would save much more which obviously cannot be measured as you obviously cannot know the impact of a crime which would have been committed but then wasn't because you convinced them it was not a good idea.

Also, I completely agree that the banks got off too lightly. They were irresponsible in their lending and they were bailed out with a very very small price. But, let us not forget that was the doings of the Labour government. Thank goodness they are gone... for now.

Regarding the Tony Benn quote:

"The government claims the cuts are unavoidable because the welfarestate has been too generous..."

I don't think this is true. The government does not claim the welfare state caused our financial trouble. Rather they (quite rightly) blame the previous Labour government for irresponsible spending which has led to the need for lots of drastic cuts in order to balance the books. And, of course, the books do need to be balanced. I think everyone agrees on that... except the Labour Party who wants to cover up their gross neglect on the country's finances.

Strix, how do you account for the worst financial crisis since the '30s depression starting in the States, where they had a noticeably neo-conservative government?

Oh, have we come round to blaming the US already? I'm tired of this tune. Can we have another one -- perhaps one that is related the topic of this thread: benefit fraud.

Strix, these wider issues do relate to the point of the thread. The OP asked the question
?I'm all for tackling benefit fraud but is this the right way??

My answer to the OP is that no, this isn?t the best way to tackle benefit fraud, but then I don?t believe that the tories are all that worried about fraud per se. They have an agenda, and it?s all part of the bigger picture. They would like us to be concerned about benefit fraud, as so diverting us form the bigger issues. They would like to cut benefits in general, as they want to roll back the welfare state, and move power into private hands.

If they are so concerned about fraud, why don?t they provide more tax investigators to investigate tax fraud? The inland revenue could certainly use them, they would make their money several times over and the government could re-coup much more money this way. But they don?t because there is a political agenda at work, it?s not about tackling fraud. It?s about using the financial crisis to push through their right wing policies.

It seems to me edam's point was relating to neo-conservatist ideas not simply trying to attribute blame to the US and as such is very relevant indeed.

These things are all connected, that?s why we?re talking about them.

Well, I am all for downsizing a government that we the people cannot afford to support. So any initiative to privatise those things which can just well be perfomed by private companies is fine by me.

Small government
Power to the people (local control)
Responsible spending

There are all good things which were lacking in the Labour government. Happy to see the Tories right where they are.

Not sure why you think it was inadvertent. Why would you tbink that?

Your mistake is to compare benefit fraud to tax avoidance. Benefit fraud - the 5 billion - can be compared to tax evasion.

If you want to bring in tax avoidance as a comparison then you need to look at next to the welfare equivalent, which is deliberately and with calculation exploiting evrry single loophole. Not caring about pregnancy because it will be a financial benefit. Getting fatter to qualify fot a gastric band. Not grtting married to claim more, or calculating the nights you spend together, or crying about self esteem snd drpression at the GP so dhe'll give you a tummy tuck referral.

Legal exploitation of the system is the equivalent of tax avoidance.. it annoys people as much as fraud who resent how much it costs them.

No one likes to part with money, benefit claimanys included. Normal people appreciate it as a way to fulfil a moral duty. But no one likes to feel suckered, by bankers, politicians, or claimants.

When you say it's five billion against (insert amount here.. have no idea) of tax avoidance you are not comparing like with like.

I don't mean to be as patronising ss yoi tried to be earlier, but do you undetstsnd that?

Appletrees, I think you make an interesting point about comparing like for like there.

Although I realise it wasn't what you were getting at I do think it's interesting that people can talk about tax avoidance without shame, but not about working the benefit system to get the most out of it.

Although you are correct to say that tax avoidance is different from benefit fraud it is still relevant. The tax rules are essentially arbitrary. A means to pull in required income for the government. If they feel they need more money they can adjust those rules as they wish. If they choose not to do so, but instead point at benefit fraud as though this were the major problem then that says something about their priorities and motives.

Fraud in any area should not be condoned, but it is seen as acceptable to spy on benefit claimants in a way that would not be acceptable for those paying tax who could equally be committing fraud.

No matter how you dress it up, in this country being poor is considered half way to being a criminal anyway.

Oh and for what it's worth. Labour were just as guilty of this practice of picking a target to be a scapegoat and a diversion to cover up real issues. It's not just the Tories.

Strix, you were the one who started attributing blame for the recession - my question was merely, how do you square blaming Labour with that it starting in the States, under a neo-con government? Honest question, I'd be very interested in your point of view.

The economic crisis hit governments of all political shades across the world but there are probably lessons to be learned form the way different countries reacted and what position each was in.

I see it completely differently. We are fi.ancially punished for saving very, very hard. Older people .eeding. are, lifelong contributod, sre hit hard. THEY are consifered the drain when in reality they are still funding young exploiters.

Being poor gets you help. Prudence gets you a smack in the chops.

Imeant to write "older people needing care, lifelong contributos" but i do.n't know how to go back and correct mydelf on phone.

Strix was not the first to assign blame. It started with the op and went on from there..

WEll, Edam, I think that whether the recession began in the states under a neo con government is very debatable. I think the recession is global. But, I also think Gordon Brown and his cronies failed to prepare us for it with their tax and waste monger practices. We could have and should have been better prepared. We should not have sold off assets (i.e. gold) as we did. WE should not have spent so much when times were good. Then, when it all went to Hell we had nothing to protect ourselves and we bailed out the banks for very little in return. Those are all things done by the Labour government.

AS for labelling George Bush so right wing, well he wasn't really a trditional right wing subscriber. I want to see fiscal conservative who is more socially liberal. Opposition to gay marriage and banning stem cell research is certainly not something I ever supported. And, fiscally, he actually soent quite a lot (especially for a Republican). So I don't see the last US government as much of an example of US conservatism.

I do wonder what they will do to direct payment/individual budget users? This is whereby (e.g.) social services put money into a separate account for a service user, who then uses it to pay for care etc., keeping accounts.

I know of people who have £10k or more per quarter (plus their own contributions of £90+ a week), going in and out of this type of accont (to care companies/PAs).

Does that make them benefit frauds? Seems to by this proposed system, despite not being able to touch the money themselves...

Interesting, Strix. Agree with you on the gold, very badly timed. Odd for GB who had always made such a fetish of his 'prudence'. Also agree it's global but started in the States, surely? I was thinking of Lehman's as the canary in the mine.

"Your mistake is to compare benefit fraud to tax avoidance"
I am not trying to say benefit fraud is analogous to tax avoidance in the way you imply.

Instead I am talking about the government's priorities. I am trying to show that there is another agenda at work here (age old tory principles) and that those who are getting upset about benefit fraud are being played. There are bigger fish to fry.

I mention tax, as if the government were really interested in going after fraudsters they would be prioritising things such as tax avoidance. That they are not implies their motives are political.

I agree about the being palyed and can absolutely see divide and conquer; convince the people to be looking at the benefit claimants so they take their eyes off all you are doing behind their backs (including forgetting who caused all this, oh bankers!)

Fraud is wrong, fraudsters should be prosecuted

But should all the innocent claimants out there be made to uffer too?

Perhaps the innocent ones already may well ahve had a bit of suffering to get there anyway?

However I do think this is a good idea asusming the rules of reciprocation wrt to creditc hecks are follwoed, so the Government will see who lives where, what bank accounts they have etc and if people have taken out humungous car loans

But not if you bought a bottle of wine this week or prefer to save up and buy clarks shoes instead.

And pomsl at all the people on the news mentioning Sky- we don;t have or want it, but I reckon if youa re elfderly or otherwsie housebound it comes in quite handy in retaining a bit of sanity?

And another oft mentioned one, broadband, allows people to find work (DH's business was started on ebay).

Oh sorry a last one but

Tell you where they should look

paypal.

Do excuse. Your first post to me compared benefit fraud to a specific case of tax avoidanve. How that gave me the idea that you were comparing benefit fraud to tax avoidance is hard to fathom.

Tax avoidrts are not fraudsters by the way.

I have sympathy with your view that everypne is being played and only you and other clever discerning sorts know the truth. Sometimrs i feel the same self righteousness about corporate venality. However most people sre able to hold two thoughts in their hrad at yhe same time and would like to see tax AND benefit grsud tackled.0

'tax avoiders are not fraudsters' - only because those in power have decided tax avoidance is fine and dandy while benefits fiddling is an appalling crime.

Both deprive the public purse of money, leaving other people to pick up the bill. One is generally pursued by the respectable classes so is defined as OK, one generally pursued by the poor or working classes, so is treated as a crime.

Personally I'd like Lord Ashcroft to have to pay full UK taxes for all the years he sat in our parliament setting the tax rates and laws the rest of us have to obey.