Benefit Fraud-Govt to check your personal details to find cheats

[Berberis]

Didn't Maggie once champion the 'black economy'?

 

Considering the black economy or black market cover such things as drug dealing and prostitution, I doubt it very much.

[Berberis]

but its ok for them to do it to you

 

Do the government steal my/your money or do they take in by consent through being democratically elected

[wednesday1]

Considering the black economy or black market cover such things as drug dealing and prostitution, I doubt it very much.

 

 

 

She favoured small government and deregulation and thought there was 'no such thing as society' - law of the jungle where anything goes as long as it makes wonga!

[gamezone07]

Surely its only demonizing those that cheat? Those that don't have nothing to worry about.

 

Ah, the old ''if you haven't done anything wrong you don't have anything to fear'' which has been the cry of dictatorships and totalitarian states through the ages.

[gamezone07]

Benefit fraud is 624 times more serious than tax evasion

 

The tax gap from evasion is, give or take the odd billion or so, £70 billion at present. The total tax gap is about £120 billion.

Benefit fraud and official error combined cost £3.1 billion last year. But apparently benefit cheating is times more important than tax abuse. How do I know? Because of this exchange of parliamentary questions and answers from Hansard:

 

 

answers from Hansard:

 

Tax Evasion: Publicity

 

Katy Clark: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much HM Revenue and Customs has spent on advertising for the purposes of preventing tax evasion in each of the last three years. [3776]

 

Mr Gauke: HM Revenue and Customs spent £633,284 (excluding VAT) on advertising for the purposes of preventing tax evasion last year. There was no expenditure in the previous two years.

 

And:

 

Katy Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much his Department budgeted for advertising tackling benefit fraud in each of the last three financial years. [1035]

 

Chris Grayling: The information is in the table:

 

Budgeted expenditure for advertising tackling benefit fraud

 

2007-08 £6.5 million

 

2008-09 £6.0 million

 

2009-10 £5.0 million

 

Note: Includes media costs, PR, production and research costs. It excludes VAT.

 

We are currently reviewing all advertising expenditure and requests for further funding will be submitted to HM Treasury for approval.

 

So over three years tackling tax evasion was worth just £633,000 but benefit fraud was worth £17.5 million.

 

So apparently, prima facie benefit fraud is 27.6 times more important than tax evasion over this period.

 

But weight the spend by the size of the problem and the ratio is even more spectacular. Then benefit fraud is 624 times more important than tax evasion.

 

Which is indicative of a spectacular error of judgement.

 

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2010/07/01/benefit-fraud-is-624-times-more-serious-than-tax-evasion/

 

 

 

This might put things into perspective, from a very good source

[Berberis]

She favoured small government and deregulation and thought there was 'no such thing as society' - law of the jungle where anything goes as long as it makes wonga!

 

Good to see people like you never change. You missquote Lady Thatcher and you know full well you have, but you want other less informed people to follow your line and believe the tripe you consider to be informed opinion.

 

Just so everyone can see the entire quote in contect here it is:

 

"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."

 

Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, 31 October 1987

 

On the subject of deregulation, that does not mean a free for all and neither does it open the door to the black economy.

[ricgem2002]

Do the government steal my/your money or do they take in by consent through being democratically elected

so you can claim for your duck pond etc and no they havent asked me either they make laws to benefit themselves .i guess what ever the government says you might stand for the egg under the hat trick but i dont .whats happened to all these so called laws the condems want us to get rid of i not heard anything more about them have you ?i wonder why

[truman]

so you can claim for your duck pond etc and no they havent asked me either they make laws to benefit themselves .i guess what ever the government says you might stand for the egg under the hat trick but i dont .whats happened to all these so called laws the condems want us to get rid of i not heard anything more about them have you ?i wonder why

 

Maybe they have a more serious problem to deal with first...?

[ricgem2002]

Maybe they have a more serious problem to deal with first...?

yes like covering their backs while still lining their pockets .remember the elected government are public servants here to serve you and i i just wish the people of this country had a bit of get up and go about them like the french

[nerd]

Of course not. But -taking your example- the people looking at the data wouldn't know that unless and until they interview/query/question the Dad and cross-check with the Son helping with the loan. Unless the Experian data is more extensive than people believe and shows them that anyway.

 

This is a 'from the private company incentivised to look for hints of fraud' perspective, I certainly never said the idea could or would work with 100% reliability. Plenty of posters have made relevant comments about that in the thread already.

 

Don't posters forget that this is supposed to be a paid-by-result ('bounty hunting') system. The more 'fraudsters' the private companies identify and report, the more they get paid (in principle). A system ripe for abuse, methinks

That's not how it works. I'm not being glib here, but you'd (and should) only get a loan if you can repay it (with a wage, pension, whatever revenue). Equity-based loans simply means you get loaned the equity value (or a portion of it) of the asset (e.g. the property) which underwrites the loan. If you don't repay it, they'll grab the asset from you just the same as defaulting on a mortgage or any other form of secured loan.

 

fair enough, I have never had or applied for a loan(other than my mortgage) or credit card so I don't really know how it all works.

So I probably have a very poor credit rating as no history of debt and loans.