RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

stellauk -> RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (12/3/2012 12:17:22 PM)

Oh wow... what an interesting discussion..

I think I have a much narrower definition of 'welfare benefit scrounger' than most people which is why I made my statement in my OP.

My definition of a welfare benefit scrounger is someone who either proactively seeks to make a fraudulent claim for welfare benefits or continues to fraudulently receive entitlements to welfare benefits. This includes people who misrepresent themselves and their circumstances in order to receive welfare benefits or other such entitlements.

This would include someone who is working and able to support themselves from their income but who still continues to claim welfare benefits.

However my definition of scrounger does not include the much more common examples of people who don't make enough or indeed any effort to change their circumstances because I'm not convinced that they are actually scrounging.

You see they could be dealing with a current health issue and have such a degree of physical or mental impairment that would cause them to be a liability to a potential employer or would compromise their ability to support themselves.

I'm aware that millions of people work and support themselves despite varying degrees of disability and physical and mental impairment, but I'm also aware of human nature and also the fact that not everybody can be strong all of the time. We all experience times and periods of weakness, some more than others.

I also don't include those on welfare - and again I'm talking about many more people than actual welfare benefit scroungers - who are so demotivated that they don't see any point in working to improve their circumstances and are - for the time being - resigned to accepting their circumstances and receiving their income from welfare benefits.

There are many more of these and they are demotivated simply because of the social stigma involved caused by the socially acceptable indignation and anger that they are claiming welfare benefits and taking money from other people.

You see it's all part of the same problem. People will generally very willingly and happily spend their money boosting the profits of corporations and others who are ripping the country off. They will quite happily vote for politicians who don't make much effort to create opportunities or make enough effort to improve the economy.

But they want to tear to pieces anyone else perceived as taking so much as a dollar of their hard earned money.

This is an example of social engineering which feeds off people's insecurities - the entire 'taxpayer' arguments used in the media, and this is what justifies the anger and the indignation because welfare benefit claimants are generally not perceived as taxpayers.

It's the exact same problem when we look at human rights and equality issues, particularly gender issues and LGBT rights - the conflicts and the moral outrage isn't coming from any other place than basic human insecurity and feelings of inadequacy.

Usually by the time people have made it to the welfare benefit office and filled out the claim forms they are already stigmatized and at a social disadvantage.

Looking for a job isn't the same as looking for a partner. While dating and trying to find someone to start a relationship with may be frustrating, job hunting can be and often is soul destroying. At the welfare benefit office you are in an environment where you are assumed guilty until you prove your innocence, everything has to be documented, and the pressure to come off welfare benefits if you're unemployed is relentless.

You see there's another side to the argument about welfare benefits but nobody is hearing it. People on welfare benefits generally don't have a platform and both politicians and the media generally don't champion their cause.

Furthermore the Government's role when it comes to welfare benefits tends to extend only as far as processing the claim and making the payments. Here in the UK if you are unemployed they will provide you with a cushy little office to visit every two weeks to sign on and computer monitors on which you can look at vacancies in your area. That's it.

Which means that when you are on welfare benefits and say unemployed you are truly on your own. You're living on the bare minimum which the Government says you have to live on, and out of that you have to pay all your expenses of looking for work (travel, phone calls, use of Internet, having decent clothes and footwear) and also keep body and soul together.

If you wanted help in becoming self-employed and setting up your own business you won't find that help at the job centre. You might want to get a driving job, say as a minicab driver or delivering pizzas, but you need a driving licence. That isn't possible either. You might want to go into IT and be prepared to sign up for a course. Again, it's not possible.

These are just three examples of how unemployed people could aspire to do something better than claim welfare benefits (in this case unemployment) but in each case there are no opportunities or the opportunities are denied.
Your options are limited to getting a job, preferably one from a vacancy which is advertised (which if not National Minimum Wage is usually also only temporary or short term).

Is it then any wonder that people on welfare benefits can fairly quickly become demotivated?

I'm a great believer in welfare to work because I don't accept that unemployment excuses someone from striving to fulfil themselves or contributing to society, but I also feel that the Government and society in general could do a lot more to helping and supporting people on welfare benefits.

I also feel that people need to make a greater effort when it comes to their insecurity and ignorance about people on welfare benefits because it is counter productive (e.g. it can lead to people becoming demotivated) and it also doesn't result in anything productive or beneficial to society as a whole.





Aswad -> RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (12/3/2012 3:28:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt

But the only way in hell the US or the UK is going to be able to afford to give those people what they need is to bust the scroungers.


Hardly. Do you have any idea how much it costs to bust them?

Every attempt at running the numbers around here turns up the same conclusion: it's not cost effective.

The only reason to bust people for welfare abuse is because some people are so upset about others getting stuff they don't deserve that they're willing to force politicians to commit public funds to punishing the abusers with no gain to the population. Yes, we do make this effort in Norway (we're very petty that way), incidentally, and it just doesn't save us any money. The cost of freeloaders is low, and the expense of us tracking them down is huge, while there's other areas of the budget that are leaking money like water through a sieve.

As Peon and Edwynn commented, "topicizing" freeloaders is a diversionary tactic. (Not sure if "topicizing" is even a word, but I hope you get what I mean by it.) In my experience, freeloaders are definitely in the minority, specifically 16% of the welfare recipients I know (a number lower than the number I know that aren't getting what they paid for), but perhaps the culture where you live is very different in this regard. Note that I'm not trying to call your credibility into question, just trying to get a handle on why our experiences differ.

Incidentally, there's been a rise in Norway in people who can only do jobs we no longer have, or jobs that are mostly covered by imported low cost labor or refugees and other immigrant populations, plus some problems with stigma resulting in employers not looking to leverage the residual work capacity of someone on disability or the like (indeed, often they're completely unwilling, even if the potential employees come with fully subsidized wages as part of a rehab program). Could such a thing perhaps account for some of those you're referring to?

IWYW,
— Aswad.



cuckoldmepls -> RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (12/3/2012 3:31:12 PM)

I don't care what your evidence is. When 47% (fact) don't pay any U.S. income taxes then they are freeloaders & using the gov to subsidize their lifestyle. e.g. smart phones, new cars, nice clothes...



cuckoldmepls -> RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (12/3/2012 3:34:36 PM)

It doesn't matter if they aren't getting any benefits directly. The fact that they don't have to pay taxes while others do means they are able to retain the equivalent of what they would if they were getting direct benefits, actually more in most cases.



DomKen -> RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (12/3/2012 3:37:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cuckoldmepls

I don't care what your evidence is. When 47% (fact) don't pay any U.S. income taxes then they are freeloaders & using the gov to subsidize their lifestyle. e.g. smart phones, new cars, nice clothes...

A majority of the 47% are retirees, active duty military in combat and children. Which of those should be denied food and shelter?



ChatteParfaitt -> RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (12/3/2012 3:40:18 PM)

Do you really think I don't understand the financial costs in the short term? Really?

To truly deal with this issue, our govt (which means our people) would have to see the necessity of changing the mindset of welfare scroungers from pure entitlement to being a viable citizen. You can throw all the money in the world at that issue with zero change, unless you can change how those people think.

To do that, you have to be able to identify who they are. This is a basic of logic, deduction, and evaluation.

BTW: I find it astounding that you think you can equate welfare scroungers in the US with those in Norway.



VideoAdminTheta -> RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (12/3/2012 3:40:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

FR

I wouldn't want to add any actual conservative thought, instead of the positions that liberals would assign. Then your thread would get locked.

Have fun!


Threads do not get locked for that reason. I think we all know well why a thread is locked or posts removed. The problem is that some decide that the removal or locking of a thread is worth the things they do to break TOS or guidelines. Therein is the problem. It is not a admin playing unfair.

I won't be back to take comments, only to do the other parts of my job.

Have a nice day.



Aswad -> RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (12/3/2012 4:00:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cuckoldmepls

I don't care what your evidence is.


You could've left it at that, you know... the rest was kind of redundant. [:D]

IWYW,
— Aswad.



jlf1961 -> RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (12/3/2012 4:09:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cuckoldmepls

It doesn't matter if they aren't getting any benefits directly. The fact that they don't have to pay taxes while others do means they are able to retain the equivalent of what they would if they were getting direct benefits, actually more in most cases.



Something you seem to be forgetting, the wealthy that pay 67% of the taxes in this country are not paying what they are supposed to be paying anyway.

quote:

Rich individuals and their families have as much as $32 trillion of hidden financial assets in offshore tax havens, representing up to $280 billion in lost income tax revenues, according to research published on Sunday.
source

The 2012 budget deficit was $1.089 trillion, and the wealthy conservatives who scream fiscal responsibility are hiding assets.



Aswad -> RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (12/3/2012 4:28:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt

Do you really think I don't understand the financial costs in the short term? Really?


My apologies if I came across that way.

You know I think quite highly of you, I hope.

Long term costs, incidentally, not short term costs.

quote:

To truly deal with this issue, our govt (which means our people) would have to see the necessity of changing the mindset of welfare scroungers from pure entitlement to being a viable citizen. You can throw all the money in the world at that issue with zero change, unless you can change how those people think.


We have "some" experience with this. Say, about sixty years or so. Some measures have been effective, while others have not.

Does this strike you as something I'd be inclined to blindly "throw money at"?

quote:

To do that, you have to be able to identify who they are. This is a basic of logic, deduction, and evaluation.


A basic, yes. The advanced stuff is when we zoom out and figure out what we need to figure out.

If I request a sample from Texas Instruments, they FedEx it to me, even if I make the request as a private person, without any sort of commitment to future business. They have no reason to suspect they're doing anything other than throwing money out the window. I'm not in the habit of requesting what I won't give them some sort of kickback on, but they don't know that. And they don't care.

The reason is probably that it's cheaper for them, overall, to fusion the express deliveries department with the special orders department and the samples department, into a single "exceptions" department that pulls stuff from the warehouse and ships it places on a bulk acct with FedEx. For them to invest a lot of effort into deciding who gets the $70 parts samples is a waste of time and money. Simply put, they don't need to figure this out, because they can tell that it's overall more profitable not to do anything about it that might require knowing this.

That's proven to be the case for us, too, but since we're hard core socialists, we don't care about the economics of it, and do it anyway (which is how we know the relative cost: we've tried both ways, then settled on the one that gave the inferior result at greater expense, but which felt better to our "worker romanticism" sensibilities). The Fiscal Conservatives want to ditch most of the measures targetted at freeloaders and concentrate on the short term users and refugees, where we do have some margins to shave, but even that is only to satisfy people that want to punish someone; to their overall mindset, this isn't even a topic, because the gains are negligible.

So, yes, if we want to pursue it, we need to know who to pursue.

The socioeconomic question is: could we gain more by focusing our efforts elsewhere?

quote:

BTW: I find it astounding that you think you can equate welfare scroungers in the US with those in Norway.


Me, too; I wasn't even aware I had.

I thought I'd asked you for help in bridging the gap between our respective experiences.

If you'd please tell me what corner of my mind is guilty, I'll promptly discipline it to get back in line with my conscious thoughts. [:D]

IWYW,
— Aswad.



farglebargle -> RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (12/3/2012 4:52:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cuckoldmepls

I don't care what your evidence is. When 47% (fact) don't pay any U.S. income taxes then they are freeloaders & using the gov to subsidize their lifestyle. e.g. smart phones, new cars, nice clothes...


What about the sales, excise and property taxes. You seem to think that they aren't taxes.

And while we're talking about freeloaders, why aren't people paying sales tax when they BUY stocks and bonds?

And while we're talking about freeloaders, why aren't people paying property taxes on their stocks and bonds. It's real property, isn't it?



TheHeretic -> RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (12/3/2012 4:56:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: VideoAdminTheta


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

FR

I wouldn't want to add any actual conservative thought, instead of the positions that liberals would assign. Then your thread would get locked.

Have fun!


Threads do not get locked for that reason. I think we all know well why a thread is locked or posts removed. The problem is that some decide that the removal or locking of a thread is worth the things they do to break TOS or guidelines. Therein is the problem. It is not a admin playing unfair.

I won't be back to take comments, only to do the other parts of my job.

Have a nice day.



Having a much better one today, thanks. Let's be real. You promised a cleanup, "tomorrow." That was Saturday night. The guy with a smug little insult in every post, right up to telling another poster to, "suck it," is still roaming free as a bird, and deliberately mis-stating the positions of others to attack their character.

The tactic of manipulating moderation is well understood. Since liberal posters have the numbers, it's even possible to do it with the death of a thousand cuts, where none of the players even reach the level of a mod note And apparently, it's an acceptable status quo.

Hey, it is what it is, but don't piss in our faces, and tell us it's raining.

Have a nice day.



Politesub53 -> RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (12/3/2012 4:57:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt

There is no question that the minimum wage in the US needs to be raised, not by me at least. There is no question that welfare benefits should be increased as well, again, JMO.

You know, it's a basic, the US govt is funded by taxes, and guess what? People who work pay taxes.

This means there should be many, many programs in place to educate people and get them working, no matter what their individual circumstances are. It's not like there isn't a ton of work to be done here. Elderly need housework, cooking, taken to doc's appts, none of this is highly skilled work.

Mothers with children need childcare, again, not highly skilled.

If you took everyone currently on welfare a/o some kind of benefit and put them to work, not only would they pay taxes, we'd have excellent care for our elderly, our disabled, and our children.

Why isn't that happening, right now? Because the current climate in the US govt will not allow it. That's what needs to change. How people think.

And getting people to think differently is very difficult, indeed.



Childcare is highly skilled here in the UK. You cant just start looking after children without the right certification, which is costly. My niece works full time running a restaurant and childcare costs take up much of her wages. The link is from 2010 and costs may have risen slightly since then.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1305310/UK-families-face-highest-costs-childcare-Average-weekly-nursery-160.html

In some areas costs can hit £400 a week. The market has a turnover of some £3bn a year.



Lucylastic -> RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (12/3/2012 5:20:17 PM)

There is a huge problem with retraining people too, especially for those on benefits.
In one program I was involved with, You couldnt take part unless you were receiving Unemployment benefits. there were 16 spots per course.
Each course got over two hundred applicants.
Each applicant had to be tested
Each applicant had to go thru an interview
Each applicant from the short list had to be accepted by the backers(UI department, banks)
Two or three interviews later, 16 were chosen.
Others were rejected for various reasons, some were put on a waiting list, others were advised to try a different course elsewhere
This process took three months.
The course was for 16 weeks with a week working at one of the banks/employers.
There was a standard exam for certification.
The employers were required to hire the applicant for a period of six months.
At the end of the first year, we had done three complete courses, 45 successful and qualified workers.
Unfortunately after that first year, only 15 were still working. We found out later that altho the banks hired them, they were letting them go at the end of their 6 month time. *the more they hired, the bigger the break from the government*.
The programme was excellent, the result was a mess, the expense enormous, the bickering of the backers was HUGE.
The poor applicants who were let go, couldnt reapply for another programme for two years afterwards.
The hope in these peoples faces so happy to have a chance at "retraining" for a decent wage, was great... seeing them at reviews a year later was horrible.

The program we did for street kids was even more of a nightmare.
I went thru a course, that actually resulted me in being hired by the retraining company had 24 spots( welfare recipient course) at the end of that year, only two of us were working. There was a lot of inspiration, a lot of help, a lot of motivation. But the jobs werent there, or, the backers, would hire them for six month contracts*at reduced wages* then at contract time, they would find a reason not to re contract.
and then go back and hire another two or three workers for six months.
I believe some of the programs closed after they realised what was actually happening.
It did give people hope, it did give them experience, it did give them qualifications. but the results in actual employment retention was horrendous.
If you were not considered for the waiting list, you were shit out of luck until other chances came up, in another avenue /program and had to go thru it all again.
I also have to say that I agree hugely with Stella again and others regarding living on welfare, and dealing with the restrictions and requirements, let alone the less than meagre benefits can be soul destroying.
Been there , done that, got the scars and nightmares.
And whats worse...it can happen again.



Lucylastic -> RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (12/3/2012 5:24:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


quote:

ORIGINAL: VideoAdminTheta


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

FR

I wouldn't want to add any actual conservative thought, instead of the positions that liberals would assign. Then your thread would get locked.

Have fun!


Threads do not get locked for that reason. I think we all know well why a thread is locked or posts removed. The problem is that some decide that the removal or locking of a thread is worth the things they do to break TOS or guidelines. Therein is the problem. It is not a admin playing unfair.

I won't be back to take comments, only to do the other parts of my job.

Have a nice day.



Having a much better one today, thanks. Let's be real. You promised a cleanup, "tomorrow." That was Saturday night. The guy with a smug little insult in every post, right up to telling another poster to, "suck it," is still roaming free as a bird, and deliberately mis-stating the positions of others to attack their character.

The tactic of manipulating moderation is well understood. Since liberal posters have the numbers, it's even possible to do it with the death of a thousand cuts, where none of the players even reach the level of a mod note And apparently, it's an acceptable status quo.

Hey, it is what it is, but don't piss in our faces, and tell us it's raining.

Have a nice day.

Are you privy to everyones inbox??? because let me tell you you are more than mistaken.



TheHeretic -> RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (12/3/2012 5:26:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad
Hardly. Do you have any idea how much it costs to bust them?





That depends entirely on the methodology, Aswad. Individual investigation? Oh hell yeah. We'd be spending 5 bucks to save a nickel. Systematic auditing of back payments and data mining? Very cost effective.

The State of California has 12% of the US population, and just under 1/3 of the national welfare caseload. That's just in what we consider, "welfare," in the US system. It does not include those persons in the completely separate unemployment benefits system, or those receiving long term federal disability assistance. A few years ago, the state performed an audit which discovered hundreds of millions of dollars in fraud and overpayments.

The single most common form of fraud is also one of the simplest. Participants are required to turn in a quarterly report form on household composition and any earnings. It's a very simple document, written at about a third grade level. It is due by the 5th of the month. There is a very long grace period though, before the case will have an irrevocable termination, and forcing the participant to go through the re-application process. If the document, called a QR-7, is turned in late enough in the grace period, the system will automatically kick the case into showing termination of the cash aid. When that happens, the food stamp payments will automatically be shifted into the "transitional," category of participants who have been cut off from cash aid, and they will receive a higher amount on that benefit. Meanwhile, as the late QR-7s get processed, the case will be manually reinstated, and the normal cash aid will be posted to the benefit card. Presto. Extra money, simply for failing to turn paperwork in on time.

Until the audit, that money wasn't even being tracked, and even though the glitch is widely known and understood, the system has still not been changed to correct it.

And since anyone who brings this up is just some evil Republican monster who wants the poor to starve, God knows when another audit might be conducted, much less the lowest bidder contracted with to rewrite the program system.



TheHeretic -> RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (12/3/2012 5:27:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
Are you privy to everyones inbox??? because let me tell you you are more than mistaken.




I'm privy to whose posts say, "awaiting approval," Lucy. [:D]



ShaharThorne -> RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (12/3/2012 5:44:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961


quote:

ORIGINAL: ElChupa

We have a dependency culture. Keep feeding a bum... or a dog.. and it will come back to you. The "feeders" and do note NOT with their own money.. is the democrat party. How can you be obama-claus? He has presents for all of his cronies. You want research? Look at Europe. LOOK AT GREECE. We are headed to be Greece. Pure and simple. Enjoy the ride. It's easy. How many BILLIONS were spent on the "war on poverty?" Remember that? We have about the same poverty rate as before. There is your research. As a side note, I never understood how democrats could be considered compassionate and giving when they GIVE with other peoples money? And their so called compassion leads to dependency and suffering? Well, we do have a pretty stupid electorate, that's for sure. Enjoy your obamaphones, muchachos.



You know what I find strange, the large number of REPUBLICANS that depend on Social Security and the WEALTHY that depend on tax breaks.


I agree with you Jeff. I am the same way, living on disability, paying for my meds that is so needed to stay balanced. If I can't get to sleep, the fibromyalgia acts up. If I can't take my mood stabilizer, I am uncontrollable. I do make sure that I do pay my bills, my meds and some food in the freezer.



Aswad -> RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (12/3/2012 6:01:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

can be soul destroying.


Absolutely.

That's really the main reason I want a simpler system. The cost to legitimate users of having a system that tries to deal with illegitimate users is too high, even without considering the actual money (it just happens to be the case that both costs are pessimized by pursuing supposed abuse). And, the freeloaders usually have resources the legitimate users don't, which makes it trivial for them to game the system, while the legitimate users just drown in this unholy mess that most closely resembles acid for the soul.

Seeing as I want functional, well balanced, thriving, growing citizens around me, I think it's vital to focus on getting good, productive citizens through the rough patches so they can continue making the country a great place to live in, rather than focusing on stopping a few bad apples from... what, exactly? The few bad apples probably won't contribute anyway, and they sure as hell won't lie down and die, so it's a lose-lose proposition to deal with them in any other way than just paying them to stay out of the way.

By the way: hugs.

IWYW,
— Aswad.



jlf1961 -> RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (12/3/2012 6:02:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ShaharThorne


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961


quote:

ORIGINAL: ElChupa

We have a dependency culture. Keep feeding a bum... or a dog.. and it will come back to you. The "feeders" and do note NOT with their own money.. is the democrat party. How can you be obama-claus? He has presents for all of his cronies. You want research? Look at Europe. LOOK AT GREECE. We are headed to be Greece. Pure and simple. Enjoy the ride. It's easy. How many BILLIONS were spent on the "war on poverty?" Remember that? We have about the same poverty rate as before. There is your research. As a side note, I never understood how democrats could be considered compassionate and giving when they GIVE with other peoples money? And their so called compassion leads to dependency and suffering? Well, we do have a pretty stupid electorate, that's for sure. Enjoy your obamaphones, muchachos.



You know what I find strange, the large number of REPUBLICANS that depend on Social Security and the WEALTHY that depend on tax breaks.


I agree with you Jeff. I am the same way, living on disability, paying for my meds that is so needed to stay balanced. If I can't get to sleep, the fibromyalgia acts up. If I can't take my mood stabilizer, I am uncontrollable. I do make sure that I do pay my bills, my meds and some food in the freezer.



You must have missed my post about offshore accounts



Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875