Why poor people make bad decisions

[beancounter]

OK, let's make a distinction between unemployment and welfare.

Unemployment is temporary assistance and welfare is long term assistance.

The politician I was referring to specifically mentioned unemployment, implying that even those who need brief help are pissing the money away.

 

[ledboots]

OK, let's make a distinction between unemployment and welfare.

Unemployment is temporary assistance and welfare is long term assistance.

The politician I was referring to specifically mentioned unemployment, implying that even those who need brief help are pissing the money away.

The debates going on lately about unemployment are about whether benefits should be continued for two years as they have been on an emergency basis, or if the economy has improved enough to cut them back to the usual 6 months. Personally I think the economy still sucks, although the stock markets are doing swimmingly, I hear.

 

[Spang]

The politician I was referring to specifically mentioned unemployment, implying that even those who need brief help are pissing the money away.

Rand Paul is right, if that's who you are talking about. Americans need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and get jobs, and make sure they don't go out in public with nice things they shouldn't have until they get said jobs.

 

[Clueless Git]

Rand Paul is right, if that's who you are talking about. Americans need to ... make sure they don't go out in public with nice things they shouldn't have until they get said jobs.

I think there's a hidden wisdom in there ..

Something along the lines of not being 'flash with the cash' if you don't want your 'paymasters' to think your getting too much money.

 

[Moll Flanders]

I agree with this. Unfortunately, people are quick to blame the people rather than the system/government. I think a big part of the problem though, that the media/etc, make it sound as though the problem of people cheating the system/etc is far bigger than it actually is, and demonise it to the point that society looks down upon anybody on "benefits" (as though there was only one type...)

Yes. I think people always think of benefits as unemployment benefits and seem to ignore that there are benefits for elderly people, disabled people, people with children etc... The level of benefit fraud is reportedly quite low, under 1% and tax fraud is much higher. Tax Research UK » Benefits fraud: £10bn in nearly a decade. Tax fraud: £70bn a year.

Also a lot of people are entitled to benefits and don't claim them. BBC News - Billions in benefits go unclaimed, DWP figures show

 

[Clueless Git]

The level of benefit fraud is reportedly quite low, under 1% ..

Detected benefit fraud could well be under 1%.

All that stat says is that no one actualy knows exactly how much of the remaining 99.alittlebit% is genuine.

A popular 'joke' when I was writing quality and traceability systems (ISO9002, at risk of triggering PTSD in anyone who ever worked with it) was the nonsensical term "Zero undetected errors".

The one about the vicar, the nun and a duck called Eric was way much funnier though.

 

[Moll Flanders]

Detected benefit fraud could well be under 1%.

All that stat says is that no one actualy knows exactly how much of the remaining 99.alittlebit% is genuine.

I would think it was higher than that but it is very hard to prove and they don't have the resources to check for fraud I imagine.

ETA I watched the Inside Out London programme and they were showing fraud inspectors trying to catch people who illegally sublet expensive properties in Westminster. They were saying that the prison sentence is only a couple of months (if they are caught) so criminals are risking getting a short prison sentence as they can make thousands of pounds profit.
BBC News - Fraud inspectors tackle London's Housing Benefit cheats

 

[Ann Chovie]

The problem the government faces with regard disability benefits is the sensitivity of the subject matter. Disability is an emotive issue.

Definition of a persons disability has to be assessed by someone using some assessment criteria. How that assessment is made depends not only on the claimants answers but an assessors interpretation of the authenticity of the claim. And the extent to which additional questioning to establish authenticity is socially acceptable in the case of someone who presents as disabled.

The claimants 'called to book' are obvious, fraudulent claims such as the type of cases highlighted by the media where wheel chair bounded claimants are photographed heading a local football team. But the fact is that at some point during an assessment of this persons disability a decision was made that he was disabled.

The person that made this assessment may have been doubtful of the authenticity of the claim but without challenging the claimant to 'pick up his bed and walk' how else would he be able to establish whether it was indeed a bogus claim?

Bogus claims are often carefully executed and backed up by supporting evidence from GP or consultants. These claimants know the value of recent supporting evidence and the need to return unlimited times requesting medication and tests in order to build up a paperwork trail.

Bogus claimants will have be very familiar with the questions they will be asked and rehearsed the text book answers that secure benefit. They know the distance they must say they can walk or not walk. And will come to assessments armed with disability aids and inhalers they have never been prescribed or been prescribed on some pretext.

Under 1% may not be this clever or do enough homework before applying but a far greater percentage are and do. This do not show up in the figures because they are not ever detected.

I once had occasion to represent a client at a medical tribunal where my elderly client was asked to refrain from using his inhaler as a test of his ability to communicate without wheezing. With a couple of minutes he was coughing uncontrollably and had virtually turned blue in the face. He was grabbing his chest and in a great deal of stress. The assessor looked up and said coldly 'fine Mr ******* you can continue to use your inhaler now we are satisfied that you need it'.

This was an undignified and humiliating scene to behold but does beg the question of the extent to which assessors can 'follow up' their suspicions of bogus claims without raising public disgust. He was a genuine claimant and it feels uncomfortable that he was made to 'prove himself' and we might tut tut that he was treated thus. But, if he had turned out to be making a bogus claim we would have given the assessor the thumbs up for 'outing him'. So its a dilemma.

 

[Clueless Git]

This was an undignified and humiliating scene to behold ...

Not as undignified and humiliating as my 'strap some bacon to the claimant, set loose the junkyard dog and see if they really can't outrun it' idea, it isn't.

 

[Clueless Git]

ETA I watched the Inside Out London programme and they were showing fraud inspectors trying to catch people who illegally sublet expensive properties in Westminster. They were saying that the prison sentence is only a couple of months (if they are caught) so criminals are risking getting a short prison sentence as they can make thousands of pounds profit.
BBC News - Fraud inspectors tackle London's Housing Benefit cheats

I watched that too.

Any penalty set below the proceeds of any crime is nothing more than a random tax on 'business' for which the risk of being unlucky enough to have to pay is obviously well worth taking.

Quite honestly silly deterents, like that, actualy act as incentives.

 

[Clueless Git]

Somewhat on topic ...

I was once caught bang to rights, no way I could have possibly denied knowing everything they needed to prosecute successfully, with evidence of housing benefit fraud.

Kiddies were going to get caught up in the fall out though.

I asked; "do i have to tell you anything?"

Answer; "Absolutely not if you don't want to".

Hardly a robust and aggressive system.

 

[das_nut]

Rand Paul is right, if that's who you are talking about. Americans need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and get jobs, and make sure they don't go out in public with nice things they shouldn't have until they get said jobs.

If Rand Paul said that, he's being an asshat.

What you paraphrased seems not to focus on an excess of luxuries, but would even include having one "luxury". What neo-Puritan crap is this and why are we tolerating the idea that the poor are unworthy of having even one nice thing?

Are we so afraid that we won't be able to pick out poor people?

It reminds me of a conversation I had at a cooperative grocery store the other day with the cashier, about people using food stamps to buy organic food. And how we think that someone, the poor don't deserve to eat well.

 

[das_nut]

I would think it was higher than that but it is very hard to prove and they don't have the resources to check for fraud I imagine.

Why not set it up like medicare fraud prevention - give them a cut of the savings?

It seems to keep medicare fraud very low.

 

[Mischief]

What neo-Puritan crap is this and why are we tolerating the idea that the poor are unworthy of having even one nice thing?

Well, duh. Obviously, being poor is a moral failing.

We haven't progressed in regard to this type of thinking.

 

[beancounter]

The debates going on lately about unemployment are about whether benefits should be continued for two years as they have been on an emergency basis, or if the economy has improved enough to cut them back to the usual 6 months.

It was a comment made by a politician about two years ago. IMO, Wall street should be footing part of the unemployment bill.

Rand Paul is right, if that's who you are talking about. Americans need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and get jobs, and make sure they don't go out in public with nice things they shouldn't have until they get said jobs.

It wasn't Paul, but one of his fellow Libertarians. When I was on unemployment, I didn't purchase any "nice things". Every penny went for necessities.

 

[Spang]

It wasn't Paul, but one of his fellow Libertarians. When I was on unemployment, I didn't purchase any "nice things". Every penny went for necessities.

When or how you got nice things matters not to some. If you're unemployed, on welfare, or receiving food stamps, you best look the part!

 

[Wolfie]

When or how you got nice things matters not to some. If you're unemployed, on welfare, or receiving food stamps, you best look the part!

I don't think anyone here has ever said that. That's just your interpretation of what was said.

 

[Clueless Git]

I don't think anyone here has ever said that. That's just your interpretation of what was said.

The opposite of what Spang said would be something like this;

"If you're unemployed, on welfare, or receiving food stamps, you best NOT look the part!"

Which would be a patent nonsense.

On the very simple basis that the opposite of what Spang said is a patent nonsense then what Spang said must be right.

 

[Clueless Git]

When I was on unemployment, I didn't purchase any "nice things". Every penny went for necessities.

Did you "look the part" BC?

 

[beancounter]

Did you "look the part" BC?

I didn't wear my business cloths during that time, except when going on a job interview. For me it was more psychological. I felt weird being home when all the other adult males on the block where at work.