Welfare fraud

Tim Robbins

Another few thousand cases!

I don't know anyone who has reported fraud or anyone who has been found out. Are the media being accurate with all this?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2013/0308/breaking30.html

Anybody know someone who reported or who was reported on?

wolfpawnat

I know a girl who got caught with the OPFP with the child's father living with her, she moved to a new area and within weeks he was living with her again. :rolleyes:

I know someone who also is getting v high maintenance off her ex and I would love to know if she is declaring it as the figures REALLY are not adding up.

With the way things are I think it is essential for all potential fraud to be investigated.

monkeypants

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Anybody know someone who reported or who was reported on?

No, but I'll bet the figure €600m came into it somewhere.

thebman

I know someone who I suspect was reported.

Their dole got cut off because they should have been on back to education allowance and not job seekers and then they had to drop out of college because they couldn't afford it so they got told they were entitled to nothing!

So they are living with their parents, the state refuses to help them at all and to top it off the person that reported did so because their father wouldn't sell them a plot of land to try to force their hand. They did the same to this persons brother but they were doing nothing wrong so got it suspended for a month or two then got it back.

The other person is stressed out of their mind with debt collectors coming after them with no way back to jobseekers until they are out of work and college courses for 12 months. Can't even go for job bridge jobs or on education courses in the mean time.

I think the figures are a con and they are doing anything to refuse people welfare to meet the targets where as before this they would have bent rules to fill the cracks in the existing system.

My friend is visibly suffering from depression and has applied for countless jobs but has heard nothing back.

wolfpawnat

thebman wrote: »

I think the figures are a con and they are doing anything to refuse people welfare to meet the targets where as before this they would have bent rules to fill the cracks in the existing system.

This is something I think is happening too. My partner got a medical card because he was in college, but since it was a second degree he had no grant. We actually have a letter from the state, nulling said card because...........he had no income! I shít you not! They need to reduce the numbers and rather than doing it legitimately, they are going to do it as swiftly as possible and will hurt innocent people to do it.

There is nothing wrong with looking into a person's finances, but if they are clean leave them alone. I hate it when you see those who were lazy during the boom being left alone and now all the new claimants that have recently lost their jobs are being persecuted unjustly.

jimmycrackcorm

thebman wrote: »

I know someone who I suspect was reported.

Their dole got cut off because they should have been on back to education allowance and not job seekers and then they had to drop out of college because they couldn't afford it so they got told they were entitled to nothing!

So they are living with their parents, the state refuses to help them at all and to top it off the person that reported did so because their father wouldn't sell them a plot of land to try to force their hand. They did the same to this persons brother but they were doing nothing wrong so got it suspended for a month or two then got it back.

The other person is stressed out of their mind with debt collectors coming after them with no way back to jobseekers until they are out of work and college courses for 12 months. Can't even go for job bridge jobs or on education courses in the mean time.

I think the figures are a con and they are doing anything to refuse people welfare to meet the targets where as before this they would have bent rules to fill the cracks in the existing system.

My friend is visibly suffering from depression and has applied for countless jobs but has heard nothing back.

So basically your friend was fraudulently claiming the dole while undertaking and education? Also I'm curious why their father would sell this piece of land to help fund their child's education. Instead you seem to blame the state for your friend being depressed.

Rightwing

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

So basically your friend was fraudulently claiming the dole while undertaking and education? Also I'm curious why their father would sell this piece of land to help fund their child's education. Instead you seem to blame the state for your friend being depressed.

I wouldn't report a welfare fraud until I see the fraud of politics cleaned up.

And I'm very much against welfare in it's current format.

thebman

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

So basically your friend was fraudulently claiming the dole while undertaking and education? Also I'm curious why their father would sell this piece of land to help fund their child's education. Instead you seem to blame the state for your friend being depressed.

That completely ignores the point that the person didn't know what they were supposed to be claiming because the system is too complex.

The department should have worked with them to help resolve the issue rather than cut them off as these are peoples lives.

They were trying to sell the land but it got into a legal dispute with the people they were trying to sell it to and the whole thing got held up because the people buying the land started messing about. It was at that point that they decided to get out of the sale because of the messing about which is why I suspect this person reported them.

avalon68

thebman wrote: »

That completely ignores the point that the person didn't know what they were supposed to be claiming because the system is too complex.

Ah now....seriously. If you can manage to go to college I think you can manage to find out what you are entitled to claim. Personally, I feel he should have to pay back what was fraudulently claimed.

carpejugulum

sickening sense of entitlement ITT

Tim Robbins

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I don't know anyone who has reported fraud or anyone who has been found out. Are the media being accurate with all this?

I can't imagine it is something people would discuss - either reporting or being reported.

I have no particular problem with suspected fraud being reported.

Is there any potential punishment if someone makes a malicious report?

Godge

wolfpawnat wrote: »

This is something I think is happening too. My partner got a medical card because he was in college, but since it was a second degree he had no grant. We actually have a letter from the state, nulling said card because...........he had no income! I shít you not! They need to reduce the numbers and rather than doing it legitimately, they are going to do it as swiftly as possible and will hurt innocent people to do it.

There is nothing wrong with looking into a person's finances, but if they are clean leave them alone. I hate it when you see those who were lazy during the boom being left alone and now all the new claimants that have recently lost their jobs are being persecuted unjustly.

I have children over 21 in college, working part-time jobs to support themselves, not entiteld to a medical card or anything. Why should someone get a medical card just because they are in college?

Godge

thebman wrote: »

That completely ignores the point that the person didn't know what they were supposed to be claiming because the system is too complex.

The department should have worked with them to help resolve the issue rather than cut them off as these are peoples lives.

They were trying to sell the land but it got into a legal dispute with the people they were trying to sell it to and the whole thing got held up because the people buying the land started messing about. It was at that point that they decided to get out of the sale because of the messing about which is why I suspect this person reported them.

People with wealth in the form of land that is saleable claiming welfare illegally.

No wonder the ordinary working person is completely fed up with the welfare system and their taxes being milked.

wolfpawnat

Godge wrote: »

I have children over 21 in college, working part-time jobs to support themselves, not entiteld to a medical card or anything. Why should someone get a medical card just because they are in college?

Because he doesn't have a job (his course does not allow it with it's long hours and the requirement the students do work experience during time they are not in college) and as a result he has 0 income, so 0 income means unable to pay for basic healthcare, surely that is a basic human right? If he has to go to the doctor he has to go to his pension aged mother for 50e. The reason I stated he was in college was to explain that he is not in employment or on JSA

creedp

Godge wrote: »

I have children over 21 in college, working part-time jobs to support themselves, not entiteld to a medical card or anything. Why should someone get a medical card just because they are in college?

That is the reason people in full time education up to 25 years of age are assessed on the basis of their family's income. Otherwise students from well off families would qualify for medical card as they have no income in their own right while young people on low income wouldn't. Problem with all hard cut off points of course is that some deserving people also fall outside the net.

Godge

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Because he doesn't have a job (his course does not allow it with it's long hours and the requirement the students do work experience during time they are not in college) and as a result he has 0 income, so 0 income means unable to pay for basic healthcare, surely that is a basic human right? If he has to go to the doctor he has to go to his pension aged mother for 50e. The reason I stated he was in college was to explain that he is not in employment or on JSA

Lots of courses have long hours and work experience but only people on grants and social welfare (or people from South Dublin) don't work part-time while in college.

If you are from an ordinary working family, you must work part-time, you use the college doctor (either cheap or free - which college is charging 50 euro?), you do without but they just get on with it.

wolfpawnat

Godge wrote: »

Lots of courses have long hours and work experience but only people on grants and social welfare (or people from South Dublin) don't work part-time while in college.

If you are from an ordinary working family, you must work part-time, you use the college doctor (either cheap or free - which college is charging 50 euro?), you do without but they just get on with it.

He has no holidays (they HAVE to do work experience, it is part of their course) and has to study nights and weekends as he has 8-5 lectures (minus hour for lunch) so no there is no time for him to get a job. Also UCD doctor has a 2/3 week waiting list so unless it is an STD, you sorta need to go see a doctor sooner than that. He has no SW, he has no grants and he is not from South Dub.

We survive on my very measily SW payment for us and our son, €217 a week for three people. Since he lives with us and I never claimed otherwise, we have to pay for all medical visits as "His father should be working" in an economic downturn where there are no jobs, him being on the dole seems more acceptable to people than trying to better himself. :rolleyes: He lost his job in the bust, and had to retrain. So no aid from anyone other than the credit union for the loan to do so.

antoobrien

Godge wrote: »

People with wealth in the form of land that is saleable claiming welfare illegally.

As usual the lack of differentiation between "wealth" and "income". One can have 20 acres of farmland but if you have to sell 1 acre at a time (approx 5-10k) in order to pay bills then there's no "wealth" attached to owning that land.

creedp

antoobrien wrote: »

As usual the lack of differentiation between "wealth" and "income". One can have 20 acres of farmland but if you have to sell 1 acre at a time (approx 5-10k) in order to pay bills then there's no "wealth" attached to owning that land.

While I don't disagree with you .. I would say the same applies to non-farm assets including cash in bank. I'm open to correction but can't you have up to €60k in the bank and qualify for a medical card? That money is only assessed in terms of it interest earning ability. For me that's a disgrace.. you get a medical card because you can't afford the pay the GP without causing you undue hardship and yet you can have €60k in the bank. The same applies with houses .. again I think its actually possible to own a house and a holiday home and write the 2 mortgage off against your income for the purposes of a medical card. Complete madness!

Godge

antoobrien wrote: »

As usual the lack of differentiation between "wealth" and "income". One can have 20 acres of farmland but if you have to sell 1 acre at a time (approx 5-10k) in order to pay bills then there's no "wealth" attached to owning that land.

Wealth is accumulated income.

If you have 20 acres of farmland worth 200k (at 10k per acre) separate from your house with off-farm income of €30k per year, then you are wealthier than someone with income of €35k per year as you have a bank of €200k in stored income.

The same applies to other forms of wealth such as shares, second houses and apartments, cash etc.

Income is an indicator of future wealth, not wealth now.

We Irish have a very strange attitude to wealth, particularly wealth in the form of land and property.

antoobrien

Godge wrote: »

Wealth is accumulated income.

If you have 20 acres of farmland worth 200k (at 10k per acre) separate from your house with off-farm income of €30k per year, then you are wealthier than someone with income of €35k per year as you have a bank of €200k in stored income.

In that case, a dwelling is on average 175k stored income, and before anyone gets welfare they should be forced to sell that asset.

Neither dwellings nor land are stored income or wealth, they are potential income dependent on several factors e.g. finding a buyer or a reasonable price. It does not always make sense to release the value of land.

Describing land as "stored income" totally ignores the potential for current income from the land. I know farmers that rent their land to their neighbours, allowing them both to prosper, while not burdening one/both with debt in order to pay to buy the land

I'll give you a verifiable real world example, there's a field beside a golf club in Galway, where the farmer is leasing a small plot of land to the club. I think the field is 5 acres, so it's worth 50k based on the going rate of agricultural land. The farmer leases a small corner, perhaps 100sq. meters to the local golf club for a nominal fee - which helps to pay for harvesting silage, buying feed and such.

Now under your theory that's 50k "stored income", but that discounts the income that could be made from say renting the land to his neighbour (which would be more in the long term).

It makes sense for the golf club to try to buy the field, it'll cut out an expense and give room for expansion, but it doesn't make sense for the farmer to sell because he's getting a his costs subsidised, and getting more or less the same income from the field.

For him, taking the "stored" value of the field does not make sense - in fact, in most cases it currently makes less sense for landowners to sell land, especially if it's to try to fund short term income.

creedp

antoobrien wrote: »

It makes sense for the golf club to try to buy the field, it'll cut out an expense and give room for expansion, but it doesn't make sense for the farmer to sell because he's getting a his costs subsidised, and getting more or less the same income from the field.

For him, taking the "stored" value of the field does not make sense - in fact, in most cases it currently makes less sense for landowners to sell land, especially if it's to try to fund short term income.

That's fine and dandy but at the end of the day when it suits him the farmer can sell the filed and realise probably a lot more that €50k. The point is then why should he get a social benefit because he no/low income when someone with no assets but with a slightly higher income get nothing?

antoobrien

creedp wrote: »

That's fine and dandy but at the end of the day when it suits him the farmer can sell the filed and realise probably a lot more that €50k. The point is then why should he get a social benefit because he no/low income when someone with no assets but with a slightly higher income get nothing?

That's conditional on one of his neighbour(s) being willing & able to buy, the land may well be sold far less than that figure as the land will be useless to anybody else (e.g. me) without also buying the farmhouse (planning regulations making it highly unlikely to be useful for housing) - meaning that the farmer will have to move.

There's 31 acres of farmland on sale near my family home, but none of the neighbours can afford to pay 300k for it. Does that make it 300k of "stored income" for the family that own it when it can't be disposed of?

Bringing it back to the person mentioned, it appears that they were reported because they were claiming back to education after they had dropped out of college, combined with a 1 year restriction before they can get a new SW payment. It has nothing to do with a means test of the value of the land, or the other person mentioned would have also lost his entitlements due to the notional stored income.

Godge

antoobrien wrote: »

In that case, a dwelling is on average 175k stored income, and before anyone gets welfare they should be forced to sell that asset.

Neither dwellings nor land are stored income or wealth, they are potential income dependent on several factors e.g. finding a buyer or a reasonable price. It does not always make sense to release the value of land.

Describing land as "stored income" totally ignores the potential for current income from the land. I know farmers that rent their land to their neighbours, allowing them both to prosper, while not burdening one/both with debt in order to pay to buy the land

I'll give you a verifiable real world example, there's a field beside a golf club in Galway, where the farmer is leasing a small plot of land to the club. I think the field is 5 acres, so it's worth 50k based on the going rate of agricultural land. The farmer leases a small corner, perhaps 100sq. meters to the local golf club for a nominal fee - which helps to pay for harvesting silage, buying feed and such.

Now under your theory that's 50k "stored income", but that discounts the income that could be made from say renting the land to his neighbour (which would be more in the long term).

It makes sense for the golf club to try to buy the field, it'll cut out an expense and give room for expansion, but it doesn't make sense for the farmer to sell because he's getting a his costs subsidised, and getting more or less the same income from the field.

For him, taking the "stored" value of the field does not make sense - in fact, in most cases it currently makes less sense for landowners to sell land, especially if it's to try to fund short term income.

In the example you give, the farmer rents out the land cheaply to the golf club and gets a low income in return which probably qualifies him for grants he otherwise wouldn't have got, leaving him no worse off. By the circular route, the taxpayer subsidises the rich wealthy land-owning members of the golf club - still not an example that persuades me.

In an equal and fair society the ability to acquire wealth has to be available to all. Some wealth, in the form of land is fixed and immutable (except for the Netherlands which reclaims it from the sea) and the principles of equality mean that there should be a way for land to come on the market. Taxing the holding of land for non-productive purposes is one way of ensuring this equality. Therefore a farmer who does not farm his land will have to sell it to pay the tax. A developer who does not develop his zoned site will have to sell it to pay the tax. This creates the ability for others to acquire the wealth and ensures that our society does not become an unequal and unfair one where the holders of land, property and wealth do not change and perpetuate themselves and their families into eternity.

Too often it seems to me that Irish independence wasn't about creating a free republic, it was just about replacing British landowners with Irish landowners, the only difference for the ordinary guy starting from the bottom was the nationality of those with wealth trying to screw him.

Essentially what I am arguing is that without a tax on imputed income from wealth, you do not have a fair society that allows all the ability to acquire wealth. If that is the society we choose, at least let us admit to that and not hide behind arguments that it is only income that should be taxed.

Godge

antoobrien wrote: »

That's conditional on one of his neighbour(s) being willing & able to buy, the land may well be sold far less than that figure as the land will be useless to anybody else (e.g. me) without also buying the farmhouse (planning regulations making it highly unlikely to be useful for housing) - meaning that the farmer will have to move.

There's 31 acres of farmland on sale near my family home, but none of the neighbours can afford to pay 300k for it. Does that make it 300k of "stored income" for the family that own it when it can't be disposed of?

.

There is plenty of farmland sold without selling the farmhouse on it. It would only be if there was unusual access issues or other legal problems that would prevent it.

As for the 31 acres of 300k of "stored income", the example just means it is not 300k, it is closer to 200k of "stored income" i.e. a price that someone is willing to pay.

creedp

antoobrien wrote: »

That's conditional on one of his neighbour(s) being willing & able to buy, the land may well be sold far less than that figure as the land will be useless to anybody else (e.g. me) without also buying the farmhouse (planning regulations making it highly unlikely to be useful for housing) - meaning that the farmer will have to move.

There's 31 acres of farmland on sale near my family home, but none of the neighbours can afford to pay 300k for it. Does that make it 300k of "stored income" for the family that own it when it can't be disposed of?

Bringing it back to the person mentioned, it appears that they were reported because they were claiming back to education after they had dropped out of college, combined with a 1 year restriction before they can get a new SW payment. It has nothing to do with a means test of the value of the land, or the other person mentioned would have also lost his entitlements due to the notional stored income.

I think the issue here is one of equality in how people are treated from a social benefits perspective. Is it OK for the family of a farmer/any other asset holder to benefit from social payments/benefits even though the parent(s) are sitting on valuable assets that can be sold or transferred to the family at any point simply because the asset is not currently realising a high enough income while the family of a low paid worker with no assets can't qualify for these benefits because the family inocme is currently above a threshold?

sarumite

I may be missing something here? Is the argument that say a taxi driver has a car worth 10k, then s/he can sell the car thus releasing the 10K? However once the car is sold, the taxi driver no longer has the means to earn an income thus putting them into a situation whereby they may need to claim some sort of SW.

antoobrien

creedp wrote: »

I think the issue here is one of equality in how people are treated from a social benefits perspective. Is it OK for the family of a farmer/any other asset holder to benefit from social payments/benefits even though the parent(s) are sitting on valuable assets that can be sold or transferred to the family at any point simply because the asset is not currently realising a high enough income while the family of a low paid worker with no assets can't qualify for these benefits because the family inocme is currently above a threshold?

Same question for somebody living in a house/apartment?

creedp

creedp wrote: »

I think the issue here is one of equality in how people are treated from a social benefits perspective. Is it OK for the family of a farmer/any other asset holder to benefit from social payments/benefits even though the parent(s) are sitting on valuable assets that can be sold or transferred to the family at any point simply because the asset is not currently realising a high enough income while the family of a low paid worker with no assets can't qualify for these benefits because the family inocme is currently above a threshold?

Are you not contradicting yourself here - if their income is above a threshold can they be called low income?

(disclaimer - I'm a farmers son and got a grant to go to college.)

Chris_5339762

Of course farmland is stored income. If noone is willing to pay €300k for it, drop the price until people can afford it.

Its the same as me having money in the bank.

antoobrien

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

Of course farmland is stored income. If noone is willing to pay €300k for it, drop the price until people can afford it.

Its the same as me having money in the bank.

Back to the 31 acres above (near the Galway city boundary). Zoned as agricultural land, it's useless to anybody but the neighbours.

Despite the fact that it can't be sold it's somehow stored income? Doesn't make sense Chris, not in the slightest.