Anti Austerity Alliance - Keeping people in Poverty Trap

Brian?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And is every person liable for punishment for anything actually punished for that very same thing?

You offered the count of people who are punished for welfare fraud as an indicator of the amount of welfare fraud; for this to be true, 100% of all welfare fraud would need to be detected, 100% of all offenders would have to be punished. Are these in any way reasonable assumptions?

At no point did I say there was no undetected fraud. I ssid we can draw a reasonable conclusion based on the detection rate.

Am I?

Yes. You are.

You offered the assertion that it wasn't a huge problem. I said I'd be far more comfortable admitting that I haven't a notion about whether it is or not. I've also shown that the reasoning given to support your assertion was questionable at best. I've now given 2 completely reasonable analogies to show that your reasoning doesn't hold up in similar situations and you haven't been able to explain why 'this time is different'.

Your analogies were flawed. I've already explained why. My reasoning holds up because it's a logical conclusion based in the evidence at hand. It's a "best guess" opinion based on the detection rate and active enforcement rate. Do you have some data to the contrary? Data about social welfare fraud, not Greek tax dodgers.

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

At no point did I say there was no undetected fraud. I ssid we can draw a reasonable conclusion based on the detection rate.

But we can't. Because we don't have 100% detection, and we don't have 100% conviction. Without that information we have almost no idea other than "it is more than this". We have no other information. We know only the minimum possible rate of Social Welfare Fraud. That is it.

Brian? wrote: »

Yes. You are.

No, I said that you cannot make the assumption that you have, and questioned your assertion that it wasn't a problem. You cannot objectively state that given the unknowns in the equation.

Brian? wrote: »

Your analogies were flawed. I've already explained why. My reasoning holds up because it's a logical conclusion based in the evidence at hand.

What evidence?! You have no information whatsoever about detection rates, and no information whatsoever about 'punishment rates' for those detected. If you do, please share.

Brian? wrote: »

It's a "best guess" opinion based on the detection rate and active enforcement rate..

What are these rates?

Brian? wrote: »

Do you have some data to the contrary?.

No, which I've said! In the absence of data, your presupposition can only be tested with logic. The logic which produces demonstrably different answers than you've arrived at when applied to scenarios that we do have data for.

Brian? wrote: »

Data about social welfare fraud, not Greek tax dodgers.

"This case is different" because..... ?

keane2097

It would be great if people were occasionally willing to say "actually, you've made some good points and I misspoke originally", instead of doubling down and making ever more obviously desperate and flimsy arguments to save face.