Mark200 wrote: » No, the allegation made was that there exists dole frauds. And that out of the dole frauds that exists, there exists people who are driving flashy cars and there exists people who have plasma screen tvs. The point of this thread was not to draw your attention to the fact that there are good and not so good people everywhere, it was to put out a suggestion as to how to significantly reduce the ability of the not so good people to take money they are not eligible for.
ScumLord wrote: » The entire system is broken and I wouldn't particularly blame the people who benefiting from it. You can't seriously expect a person to say no to extra money when everyone else is doing it. Now they've become reliant on that money and think they can't live without it.
Mark200 wrote: » And that out of the dole frauds that exists, there exists people who are driving flashy cars and there exists people who have plasma screen tvs.
Long Onion wrote: » Like I said - pics or GTFO.
wudangclan wrote: » http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/09/10/article-1212507-065EA018000005DC-746_634x425_popup.jpg
Lux23 wrote: » Now I am sure there are people out there who are defrauding the state but I also sure there are people out there who are taking a few hours work here and there simply to get by. I would never report anyone for the simple reason that although it may seem they have all the luxuries they could still be struggling. You have to remember that many people could have gotten their big cars and tvs on tic while they still had a decent income. Another thing I find amazing is that people seem to think that if you are entitled to get things from the state that they easy to get. It isn't, While alot of this was being refused my Dad was on the dole so would you still have begrudge him a few extra quid a week? And yes I do understand the irony that social welfare fraud could have been reducing the budgets for these things but if people were adequately provided for they may not have to resort to this.
Mark200 wrote: » So what about this... my solution to this would be for the state to provide a financial reward to anyone who successfully reports someone else for defrauding the state. Whenever the person is found to be wrongfully claiming, one month's worth of it will be award to the person who reports them. For example: Someone claiming the dole when they shouldn't? One months worth of the dole is awarded to whoever reports them Someone claiming rent when they shouldn't? One months worth of their rent is awarded to whoever reports them. And then obviously a big penalty to those who are found to be defrauding the state. Does anyone else agree with this idea? At the moment I don't think there's enough incentive to report people like this, and the people who really do need the money might be losing out because the ones who don't need it are claiming it too.
Lux23 wrote: » My Dad was unemployed for most of the 80s and the early part of the 90s. My mum worked (woefully paid catering job) so most of the time he was at home cooking, cleaning and minding the kids but he would occasionally get a few hours driving here and there which he never said anything about. So in about 92 he was reported after someone driving a hearse for a funeral, he had a visit from SW inspector who he told the truth. He used to get £15 for 4 hours work about once a week and he was hoping to get more so he could go on to the back to work scheme within a few months ( a great scheme that was available at the time). The SW inspector was happy with that and was sympathetic to my Dad's situation, he was a married man with two kids and one on the way. My younger brother had just being diagnosed as severly retarded with autistic tendencies and at the time my parents were receiving no support or help with this. Basically one of parents had to stay at home to look after him as noone else could but they also couldn't afford to survive on my mum's meagre wage and the dole so Dad had no choice but do a few hours when he could. My Dad was finally able to return to work when my brother got a school place and he could accept work during the day. In the end the SW Inspector said he would only lose a few quid a week so he said he would turn a blind eye. Now I am sure there are people out there who are defrauding the state but I also sure there are people out there who are taking a few hours work here and there simply to get by. I would never report anyone for the simple reason that although it may seem they have all the luxuries they could still be struggling. You have to remember that many people could have gotten their big cars and tvs on tic while they still had a decent income. Another thing I find amazing is that people seem to think that if you are entitled to get things from the state that they easy to get. It isn't, below are a list of things my parents had to beg to get for my brother. - A school place ( He was lucky to start at 4 but should have been in school at 2) - A medical card ( He has epilepsy and autisim but was refused one till he was 16 as the it means tested on his income, so we had to wait till he got disability allowance) - Nappies (He was in nappies till he was 9 but we only found incidentally that he was entitled to a free supply when he was 7) - Domicillary Allowance - Every parent with a child with a mental/phsyical handicap was entitled to this but he never got it - Respite Care - We didn't get regular respite until he was 13, before it was on a cancellation list!! While alot of this was being refused my Dad was on the dole so would you still have begrudge him a few extra quid a week? And yes I do understand the irony that social welfare fraud could have been reducing the budgets for these things but if people were adequately provided for they may not have to resort to this.
Lux23 wrote: » .. .. While alot of this was being refused my Dad was on the dole so would you still have begrudge him a few extra quid a week? And yes I do understand the irony that social welfare fraud could have been reducing the budgets for these things but if people were adequately provided for they may not have to resort to this.
Mark200 wrote: » I must have missed the memo that said you now make the rules for the internet.
Mark200 wrote: » I must have missed the memo that said you now make the rules for the internet. No doubt it must have been difficult, but I think the circumstances your parents experienced are very obviously a failure by the state, especially with them not telling you about the allowances you were entitled to. Anyway as I said in my post: "people who really do need the money might be losing out because the ones who don't need it are claiming it too. ". The people who do need it should get it. A big problem is people who did need it then never bothered telling anyone when they no longer needed it (eg if they moved in with a partner and still took the single parent rent allowance).
Lux23 wrote: » If a woman moves in with a new boyfriend and its not his kid in my mind she is still entitled to single parents allowance, why should the new man fork out for someone else's kid?
ScumLord wrote: » Because the female will refuse sexual intercourse if he doesn't. That's got nothing to do with the government.
Victor_M wrote: » I have done it once in the past and I would do it again if the circumstances were the same, basically I witnessed the most unashamed milking of our countries SW by a rude, obnoxious, lazy, demanding tenant co-habiting with her BF, put up with it for a few months couldn't take it any most turfed her out after I reported her to the dept of SW.
Mark200 wrote: » So what about this... my solution to this would be for the state to provide a financial reward to anyone who successfully reports someone else for defrauding the state. .
Jay P wrote: » TL;DR Surely the state should have their own ways of finding out if there are people defrauding them, instead of relying on whistleblowers. It's their problem if people are claiming benefits when they shouldn't, not mine.
espinolman wrote: » Where do you think this is , the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic of Europe !
Mark200 wrote: » Eh sorry but every single person in this country avails of services that the state provides in some way or another. And every single person in this country pays taxes in some way or another. So if you don't care then fair enough, but I'm sure the vast majority of tax payers would prefer to see their tax money going to people who need it. I said it's not my problem, not that I don't care. I'm not exactly happy about people essentially stealing money, but it's not up to me to resolve that issue, nor is it up to you. It's up to the governement and the Department of whatever it is.
Mark200 wrote: » For example: Someone claiming the dole when they shouldn't? One months worth of the dole is awarded to whoever reports them Someone claiming rent when they shouldn't? One months worth of their rent is awarded to whoever reports them. .
espinolman wrote: » Do you know what would happen , certain people would make it a business , reporting anyone they catch defrauding the state . What is wrong with the way things are , where you just report them and not get a reward . But if they are rewarded for reporting it , that is like saying the state favours whoever reports it and that is like what went on in communist Russia .
TomTom wrote: » I just wrote a long post just realised near the end I was just ranting so I deleted it. Yes there are many many people out there ripping off the system and to be honest looking for a reward to dob them in is feck all different. Do your civic duty and report fraudsters don't be expecting a handout for doing the right thing.
brendansmith wrote: » TBH if you did take the time and report someone, the chances are that absolutely nothing would happen.
Sir Gallagher wrote: » So what's the right thing then? Let us all know.
TomTom wrote: » Use your best judgement and if you think someone is commiting fraud that needs to be stopped then report it.
