Benefit Fraud - expensive?

rick_chasey

http://falseeconomy.org.uk/blog/benefit ... e-very-low

It's all relative.

Last week's DWP report on Fraud and Error in the Benefit System really ought to get more coverage.

With this publication we now have figures for the whole of the financial year 2010/11.

They show: 0.8% of benefit spending is overpaid due to fraud, amounting to £1.2 billion, and that this proportion is the same as in 2009/10.

If we look at the estimates for different benefits, they are:

Retirement Pension 0.0%;

Incapacity Benefit 0.3%;

Disability Living Allowance 0.5%;

Council Tax Benefit 1.3%;

Housing Benefit 1.4%;

Pension Credit 1.6%;

Income Support 2.8%;

Jobseeker’s Allowance 3.4%;

Carer’s Allowance 3.9%

DonDaddyD

So what are you saying benefit fraud isn't that big a drain on the nations resources and in actual fact the Tories have been scapegoating this small group of people to pursue their own gains?

sketchley

Interesting. I think the planned reforms regarding Incapacity benefit are designed so that people currently legitimately claiming it (note not fraudulently) would not be able to claim it in the future due to tougher medical tests and means testing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011 ... ty-benefit

Ministers have pledged to reform incapacity benefit after an almost fivefold increase to 2.4 million in the number of claimants since the late 1970s, and Chris Grayling, the employment minister, said: "It's clear that millions of people have been written off for years, left on incapacity benefit with no real support to get into work. That's why we are retesting people to see if they have the capacity to work. Our changes will make sure those in genuine need get more support and those who could and should be working are given the opportunity to do so."

But the co-author of the report, professor Steve Forthergill, said: "The large numbers that will be pushed off incapacity benefits over the next two to three years are entirely the result of changes in benefit rules – the introduction of a new tougher medical test and, in particular, the more widespread application of means-testing from next April onwards. The reduction does not mean that there is currently widespread fraud, or that the health problems and disabilities are anything less than real."

And as we will no doubt get on to the debate about Tax Avoidance / Evasion vs Benefit Fraud did you see this at weekend. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... n-tax.html

and

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andre ... ranscript/

And this from today

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andre ... hypocrite/

rick_chasey

DonDaddyD wrote:

So what are you saying benefit fraud isn't that big a drain on the nations resources and in actual fact the Tories have been scapegoating this small group of people to pursue their own gains?

Not entirely.

3.9% is a big proportion, so is 3.4%.

It's more that the gov't should perhaps better target specific benefits re-fraud.

Disability living allowance fraud seems small, so why put all this extra regulation through for disabled people to jump through? Seems harsh, for a) a vulnerable group and b) because the fraud there is already pretty low.

rick_chasey

Overall, the amount of benefit overpayment as a result of fraud is roughly 5% of the amount MP claimed big firms dodged in tax last year.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news ... -HMRC.html

W1

The level of fraud can only be guessed.

mtb-idle

you could similarly argue that if you look at the crime stats in your typical london area you will see that RLJ'ing really isn't worth the level of anger and internet/newspaper attention that it gets

rick_chasey

W1 wrote:

The level of fraud can only be guessed.

rjsterry

Sketchley wrote:

Interesting. I think the planned reforms regarding Incapacity benefit are designed so that people currently legitimately claiming it (note not fraudulently) would not be able to claim it in the future due to tougher medical tests and means testing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011 ... ty-benefit

Ministers have pledged to reform incapacity benefit after an almost fivefold increase to 2.4 million in the number of claimants since the late 1970s, and Chris Grayling, the employment minister, said: "It's clear that millions of people have been written off for years, left on incapacity benefit with no real support to get into work. That's why we are retesting people to see if they have the capacity to work. Our changes will make sure those in genuine need get more support and those who could and should be working are given the opportunity to do so."

But the co-author of the report, professor Steve Forthergill, said: "The large numbers that will be pushed off incapacity benefits over the next two to three years are entirely the result of changes in benefit rules – the introduction of a new tougher medical test and, in particular, the more widespread application of means-testing from next April onwards. The reduction does not mean that there is currently widespread fraud, or that the health problems and disabilities are anything less than real."

And as we will no doubt get on to the debate about Tax Avoidance / Evasion vs Benefit Fraud did you see this at weekend. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... n-tax.html

and

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andre ... ranscript/

And this from today

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andre ... hypocrite/

Ah, Mr Gilligan. That axe must be worn down to the handle by now.

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

Overall, the amount of benefit overpayment as a result of fraud is roughly 5% of the amount MP claimed big firms dodged in tax last year.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news ... -HMRC.html

Why are you comparing tax avoidance and benefit fraud?

One is legal, the other is not.

I don't believe for a moment that you don't understand the distinction - so why the apparently deliberate misdirection (like you also tried to do with the Chris Hune thread)?

rick_chasey

MTB-Idle wrote:

you could similarly argue that if you look at the crime stats in your typical london area you will see that RLJ'ing really isn't worth the level of anger and internet/newspaper attention that it gets

We do.

Some on here get very angry about benfit fraud.

Figured a bit of perspective wouldn't hurt.

rick_chasey

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Overall, the amount of benefit overpayment as a result of fraud is roughly 5% of the amount MP claimed big firms dodged in tax last year.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news ... -HMRC.html

Why are you comparing tax avoidance and benefit fraud?

One is legal, the other is not.

I don't believe for a moment that you don't understand the distinction - so why the apparently deliberate misdirection (like you also tried to do with the Chris Hune thread)?

Perspective!

SimonAH

Yes Rick. 1.2 BILLION POUNDS is very very expensive. It may be a small percentage, but it's a flocking huge amount of money.

If it were paid in pound coins it would require almost every single pound coin in circulation.

If you laid them side by side in a line they would stretch 27,000 Km - two thirds of the circumference of the entire bloody planet.

It is a colossal, mind bendingly, staggeringly, bowel wateringly ENORMOUS sum of money.

Even if you stacked twenty pound notes it would make 577 stacks the height of Canary Wharf.

Regarding this as a small amount of money is really rather daft no?

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Overall, the amount of benefit overpayment as a result of fraud is roughly 5% of the amount MP claimed big firms dodged in tax last year.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news ... -HMRC.html

Why are you comparing tax avoidance and benefit fraud?

One is legal, the other is not.

I don't believe for a moment that you don't understand the distinction - so why the apparently deliberate misdirection (like you also tried to do with the Chris Hune thread)?

Perspective!

Like the perspective between apples and oranges?

rjsterry

SimonAH wrote:

Yes Rick. 1.2 BILLION POUNDS is very very expensive. It may be a small percentage, but it's a flocking huge amount of money.

If it were paid in pound coins it would require almost every single pound coin in circulation.

If you laid them side by side in a line they would stretch 27,000 Km - two thirds of the circumference of the entire bloody planet.

It is a colossal, mind bendingly, staggeringly, bowel wateringly ENORMOUS sum of money.

Even if you stacked twenty pound notes it would make 577 stacks the height of Canary Wharf.

Regarding this as a small amount of money is really rather daft no?

You missed out the other obligatory comparators : Wales, an olympic swimming pool and a double decker bus.

rick_chasey

SimonAH wrote:

Yes Rick. 1.2 BILLION POUNDS is very very expensive. It may be a small percentage, but it's a flocking huge amount of money.

If it were paid in pound coins it would require almost every single pound coin in circulation.

If you laid them side by side in a line they would stretch 27,000 Km - two thirds of the circumference of the entire bloody planet.

It is a colossal, mind bendingly, staggeringly, bowel wateringly ENORMOUS sum of money.

Even if you stacked twenty pound notes it would make 577 stacks the height of Canary Wharf.

Regarding this as a small amount of money is really rather daft no?

It's all relative.The total annual budget of the DWP in 2011-12 is £151.6 billion...

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

MTB-Idle wrote:

you could similarly argue that if you look at the crime stats in your typical london area you will see that RLJ'ing really isn't worth the level of anger and internet/newspaper attention that it gets

We do.

Some on here get very angry about benfit fraud.

Figured a bit of perspective wouldn't hurt.

In perspective, it's a hug amount of cash, taken by thieves.

Why shouldn't any tax payer be angry about that?

rjsterry

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Overall, the amount of benefit overpayment as a result of fraud is roughly 5% of the amount MP claimed big firms dodged in tax last year.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news ... -HMRC.html

Why are you comparing tax avoidance and benefit fraud?

One is legal, the other is not.

I don't believe for a moment that you don't understand the distinction - so why the apparently deliberate misdirection (like you also tried to do with the Chris Hune thread)?

Perspective!

Like the perspective between apples and oranges?

In to the lifeboats everyone; this is not a drill...

rick_chasey

W1 wrote:

In perspective, it's a hug amount of cash, taken by thieves.

Why shouldn't any tax payer be angry about that?

I thought you could only guess at the amount?

Which way do you want it W1? A huge amount of cash, or something we can only guess?

SimonAH

rjsterry wrote:

SimonAH wrote:

Yes Rick. 1.2 BILLION POUNDS is very very expensive. It may be a small percentage, but it's a flocking huge amount of money.

If it were paid in pound coins it would require almost every single pound coin in circulation.

If you laid them side by side in a line they would stretch 27,000 Km - two thirds of the circumference of the entire bloody planet.

It is a colossal, mind bendingly, staggeringly, bowel wateringly ENORMOUS sum of money.

Even if you stacked twenty pound notes it would make 577 stacks the height of Canary Wharf.

Regarding this as a small amount of money is really rather daft no?

You missed out the other obligatory comparators : Wales, an olympic swimming pool and a double decker bus.

Gah, you are correct.

In pound coins it would weigh the same as 1,594 RouteMaster double decker buses.

I really can't be bothered to do the maths to see how many olympic swimming pools you could fill with coins - but I'm pretty sure you could buy Wales with it even if the rugby success has pushed the price up a bit.

mtb-idle

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

MTB-Idle wrote:

you could similarly argue that if you look at the crime stats in your typical london area you will see that RLJ'ing really isn't worth the level of anger and internet/newspaper attention that it gets

We do.

Some on here get very angry about benefit fraud.

Figured a bit of perspective wouldn't hurt.

In perspective, it's a hug amount of cash, taken by thieves.

Why shouldn't any tax payer be angry about that?

I'm not arguing against doing something about it.

rjsterry

SimonAH wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

SimonAH wrote:

Yes Rick. 1.2 BILLION POUNDS is very very expensive. It may be a small percentage, but it's a flocking huge amount of money.

If it were paid in pound coins it would require almost every single pound coin in circulation.

If you laid them side by side in a line they would stretch 27,000 Km - two thirds of the circumference of the entire bloody planet.

It is a colossal, mind bendingly, staggeringly, bowel wateringly ENORMOUS sum of money.

Even if you stacked twenty pound notes it would make 577 stacks the height of Canary Wharf.

Regarding this as a small amount of money is really rather daft no?

You missed out the other obligatory comparators : Wales, an olympic swimming pool and a double decker bus.

Gah, you are correct.

In pound coins it would weigh the same as 1,594 RouteMaster double decker buses.

I really can't be bothered to do the maths to see how many olympic swimming pools you could fill with coins - but I'm pretty sure you could buy Wales with it even if the rugby success has pushed the price up a bit.

That's clearly not true

SimonAH

Or how about more than 46 times what was stolen in the Brink's Mat robbery, the largest robbery in British history.

It's bloody thieving, it needs stamping on. It should be as socially acceptable as having sex with a toddler.

rick_chasey

Seem tax fraud costs £15bn.

Thieving bastards.

Lot in my office don't declare for rent they get from their tenants but go nuts over benefit cheats...

http://citywire.co.uk/money/tax-evasion ... ud/a378274

Like I said, perspective guys!

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

In perspective, it's a hug amount of cash, taken by thieves.

Why shouldn't any tax payer be angry about that?

I thought you could only guess at the amount?

Which way do you want it W1? A huge amount of cash, or something we can only guess?

presume they aren't just plucked out of the air completely - even if they underestimate the problem by 50%, it's still a huge amount of cash.

I just think it's amusing that you want to try to make some case that benefit fraud is somehow not a big deal because it's only £1.2bn (by the guestimates you've elected to use). To then compare it to (legal) tax avoidance (rather than the actual equivalent - tax evasion) is insincere at best and deliberately misleading at worst.

rick_chasey

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

In perspective, it's a hug amount of cash, taken by thieves.

Why shouldn't any tax payer be angry about that?

I thought you could only guess at the amount?

Which way do you want it W1? A huge amount of cash, or something we can only guess?

presume they aren't just plucked out of the air completely - even if they underestimate the problem by 50%, it's still a huge amount of cash.

I just think it's amusing that you want to try to make some case that benefit fraud is somehow not a big deal because it's only £1.2bn (by the guestimates you've elected to use). To then compare it to (legal) tax avoidance (rather than the actual equivalent - tax evasion) is insincere at best and deliberately misleading at worst.

Never said it wasn't a big deal. I'm saying, relative to other problems - it's small - especially compared to the press it gets, and the anger it generates (especially for you )

DonDaddyD

Rick, what are you trying to say here?

Let's try this. Benefit fraud and Tax evasion are wrong and need to be stopped in equal measure. There is no lesser of two evils here, because while the amount they cost the Country differs the practice of both breeds contempt within society and ultimately harms it in ways other than the expense.

I grow tired of the Left vs Right nitpicking.

rick_chasey

DonDaddyD wrote:

Rick, what are you trying to say here?

Let's try this. Benefit fraud and Tax evasion are wrong and need to be stopped in equal measure. There is no lesser of two evils here, because while the amount they cost the Country differs the practice of both breeds contempt within society and ultimately harms it in ways other than the expense.

I grow tired of the Left vs Right nitpicking.

I get tired of people using benefit fraud as a vehicle to deny people something that really really helps a lot of people, and to victimise a strata of society that already has it pretty rough.

SimonAH

Not a left vs right observation, but I am truly staggered at how socially acceptable it is amongst some communities. It's not seen as theft but as a victimless crime and 'getting one over on the man'

rick_chasey

Anyway, it's still 8% of the cost of tax fraud.

rick_chasey

SimonAH wrote:

Not a left vs right observation, but I am truly staggered at how socially acceptable it is amongst some communities. It's not seen as theft but as a victimless crime and 'getting one over on the man'

Agreed.

Same can be said for tax fraud (which guys in my office advise other guys to do, and I get chastised by them for suggesting they should declare all their income!)