Benefit Fraud - expensive?

rick_chasey

How many of you have paid people cash-in-hand out of interest?

Be honest. I know I have.

supersonic

Interesting how the figure for Incapacity Benefit fraud is 0.3%, yet the DWP in a study showed that 30% of claimants are fit for work, and a further 39% can work with support.

rick_chasey

supersonic wrote:

Interesting how the figure for Incapacity Benefit fraud is 0.3%, yet the DWP in a study showed that 30% of claimants are fit for work, and a further 39% can work with support.

Reference?

supersonic

DWP did the study in Aberdeen and Burnley: the results can be found in a number of places, but Wiki is one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incapacity_Benefit

rick_chasey

supersonic wrote:

DWP did the study in Aberdeen and Burnley: the results can be found in a number of places, but Wiki is one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incapacity_Benefit

This is the press release for the study: http://www.dwp.gov.uk/newsroom/press-re ... 9-11.shtml

The first published findings from the Government’s incapacity benefit reassessment programme have confirmed that a substantial proportion of claimants have the capacity to return to work if they receive the right help to do so.

The provisional figures show that we have made 1347 decisions of which:

399 have been found fit for work (29.6%)
422 are in the support group for Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) – this means they will receive unconditional support (31.3%)
526 are in the Work Related Activity of ESA – this means with the right help and support they can start the journey back to work (39%)
The Government will continue with its plan for a further limited roll-out from the end of this month before the full nationwide launch in April. Once the nationwide roll-out begins around 1.5m people will be assessed. The Government is already well advanced with the introduction of changes to the work capability assessment recommended in the recent Harrington report and all the planned changes will be in place for the full national roll-out of the programme.

In tandem with the first nationwide decisions coming through in the summer, the Government’s new Work Programme will come on stream, providing comprehensive specialist help to all those with the capability to work.

SimonAH

If you want perspective however, let's consider this;

From the figures given at the opening of this thread 0.8% of the benefits spend is 1.2B£.
This means that the overall spend on BENEFITS in this country is 150 billion pounds annually.

Note. Benefits, not NHS or palliative care or homeless shelters but benefits.Just benefits.

Now, to put it REALLY in perspective (source is http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn09.pdf) this is almost exactly the total annual revenue raised from income tax.

.........so. It would be fair to say that all of the income tax you pay, all of you, each and every one of you, goes to pay benefits. That big chunk missing from your paycheque? Went to pay benefits.

Now the odds are that, if you are currently looking at your paycheque and thinking "bueggr me, that's a lot of cash" then you aren't receiving any of those benefits - well, maybe child benefit - so I find it rather unsurprising that many people are absolutely incandescent when they see benefit cheating and system exploitation going on all around them.

THAT'S MY FCUKING INCOME TAX THEY ARE STEALING

greg66_tri_v2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

How many of you have paid people cash-in-hand out of interest?

Be honest. I know I have.

Not sure what your point is here.

However I pay someone - cash, cheque, BACS - for work they do for me, whether or not they choose to declare their income in full is entirely up to them and out of my control. Payment in cash removes a paper trail of bank account entries. It may remove a paper trail of invoices and receipts. But it seems to me to be wide of the mark to suggest that someone who gives a receipt, or raises an invoice, or who clears their payment through a bank account will not, simply because of those factors, under declare their income to HMRC.

Either the payee is a crook or they aren't. If they are you won't straighten them out with a cheque.

rick_chasey

SimonAH wrote:

If you want perspective however, let's consider this;

From the figures given at the opening of this thread 0.8% of the benefits spend is 1.2B£.
This means that the overall spend on BENEFITS in this country is 150 billion pounds annually.

Note. Benefits, not NHS or palliative care or homeless shelters but benefits.Just benefits.

Now, to put it REALLY in perspective (source is http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn09.pdf) this is almost exactly the total annual revenue raised from income tax.

.........so. It would be fair to say that all of the income tax you pay, all of you, each and every one of you, goes to pay benefits. That big chunk missing from your paycheque? Went to pay benefits.

Now the odds are that, if you are currently looking at your paycheque and thinking "bueggr me, that's a lot of cash" then you aren't receiving any of those benefits - well, maybe child benefit - so I find it rather unsurprising that many people are absolutely incandescent when they see benefit cheating and system exploitation going on all around them.

THAT'S MY FCUKING INCOME TAX THEY ARE STEALING

Buy why aren't you incandescent that £15bn is missing through tax fraud?

TheStone

Rick Chasey wrote:

Last week's DWP report

So the people in charge of stuff do a report telling us what a good job they're doing??

This is up there with the Bank of England's quantitative easing report.

What next? The HMRC report claiming only 0.14% of tax due is evaded/avoided.

rick_chasey

Greg66 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

How many of you have paid people cash-in-hand out of interest?

Be honest. I know I have.

Not sure what your point is here.

However I pay someone - cash, cheque, BACS - for work they do for me, whether or not they choose to declare their income in full is entirely up to them and out of my control. Payment in cash removes a paper trail of bank account entries. It may remove a paper trail of invoices and receipts. But it seems to me to be wide of the mark to suggest that someone who gives a receipt, or raises an invoice, or who clears their payment through a bank account will not, simply because of those factors, under declare their income to HMRC.

Either the payee is a crook or they aren't. If they are you won't straighten them out with a cheque.

'tis true in theory.

In practice, when anyone says "I paid him cash in hand, so it was a fair bit cheaper" (and that gets says a lot round my way), everyone knows what it means.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

How many of you have paid people cash-in-hand out of interest?

Be honest. I know I have.

Not sure what your point is here.

However I pay someone - cash, cheque, BACS - for work they do for me, whether or not they choose to declare their income in full is entirely up to them and out of my control. Payment in cash removes a paper trail of bank account entries. It may remove a paper trail of invoices and receipts. But it seems to me to be wide of the mark to suggest that someone who gives a receipt, or raises an invoice, or who clears their payment through a bank account will not, simply because of those factors, under declare their income to HMRC.

Either the payee is a crook or they aren't. If they are you won't straighten them out with a cheque.

'tis true in theory.

In practice, when anyone says "I paid him cash in hand, so it was a fair bit cheaper" (and that gets says a lot round my way), everyone knows what it means.

I understand that. We don't disagree on that.

If you paid him by cheque though, you've got precisely zero assurance he will declare it as income. Case in point: your co-workers and their rental income. I am guessing they are not slum landlords moving from door to door on a Friday collecting cash. They are paid by, what, direct debit, standing order? Doesn't stop them failing to declare.

rick_chasey

Agreed.

Still. You know where I'm coming from.

rick_chasey

Like I said, it's guys in my office who own flats and charge rent to one of their mates and then don't declare them, yet in the same breath go nuts at benefit cheats.

Winds me up. They use 'benefit cheats' as a way to have a go a strata of society they don't like, rather than making a fiscal case.

SimonAH

Rick Chasey wrote:

SimonAH wrote:

If you want perspective however, let's consider this;

From the figures given at the opening of this thread 0.8% of the benefits spend is 1.2B£.
This means that the overall spend on BENEFITS in this country is 150 billion pounds annually.

Note. Benefits, not NHS or palliative care or homeless shelters but benefits.Just benefits.

Now, to put it REALLY in perspective (source is http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn09.pdf) this is almost exactly the total annual revenue raised from income tax.

.........so. It would be fair to say that all of the income tax you pay, all of you, each and every one of you, goes to pay benefits. That big chunk missing from your paycheque? Went to pay benefits.

Now the odds are that, if you are currently looking at your paycheque and thinking "bueggr me, that's a lot of cash" then you aren't receiving any of those benefits - well, maybe child benefit - so I find it rather unsurprising that many people are absolutely incandescent when they see benefit cheating and system exploitation going on all around them.

THAT'S MY FCUKING INCOME TAX THEY ARE STEALING

Buy why aren't you incandescent that £15bn is missing through tax fraud?

I am.

You are (eqiv) saying that mugging is OK because there are serial killers out there. That is a nonsense and a non argument.

Your opener was that benefit fraud isn't a big deal.

It is.

We've proven that clearly and concisely.

To try to ignore that by saying that other, unrelated, nasties are being perpetrated is pointless.

rick_chasey

SimonAH wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

SimonAH wrote:

If you want perspective however, let's consider this;

From the figures given at the opening of this thread 0.8% of the benefits spend is 1.2B£.
This means that the overall spend on BENEFITS in this country is 150 billion pounds annually.

Note. Benefits, not NHS or palliative care or homeless shelters but benefits.Just benefits.

Now, to put it REALLY in perspective (source is http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn09.pdf) this is almost exactly the total annual revenue raised from income tax.

.........so. It would be fair to say that all of the income tax you pay, all of you, each and every one of you, goes to pay benefits. That big chunk missing from your paycheque? Went to pay benefits.

Now the odds are that, if you are currently looking at your paycheque and thinking "bueggr me, that's a lot of cash" then you aren't receiving any of those benefits - well, maybe child benefit - so I find it rather unsurprising that many people are absolutely incandescent when they see benefit cheating and system exploitation going on all around them.

THAT'S MY FCUKING INCOME TAX THEY ARE STEALING

Buy why aren't you incandescent that £15bn is missing through tax fraud?

I am.

You are (eqiv) saying that mugging is OK because there are serial killers out there. That is a nonsense and a non argument.

Your opener was that benefit fraud isn't a big deal.

It is.

We've proven that clearly and concisely.

To try to ignore that by saying that other, unrelated, nasties are being perpetrated is pointless.

No I'm not saying that.

What I'm saying is, why is there so much emphasis on one and not the other?

Hence "it's all relative".

Mm??

rick_chasey

People make out benefit cheats are THE problem, when clearly, scale wise, they're less so, compared to tax fraud.

I rarely see articles or people on here getting angry about tax fraud, calling them 'scrotes, and generally getting angry.

It's clearly more than just the tax, isn't it?

sketchley

Rick Chasey wrote:

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!

You don't have to declare that http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAnd ... DG_4017804

rick_chasey

Sketchley wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

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!

You don't have to declare that http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAnd ... DG_4017804

No, you always declare. The Tax man can decide in light of the rule if that income is taxable or not.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

Agreed.

Still. You know where I'm coming from.

No, I really don't. If your point is that it is reprehensible for a payee to evade tax by under declaring income, I agree.

But if your point is that it is in some way reprehensible for a payer to pay in cash for services (and that seemed to be the thrust of the initial throwaway line), I think you're barking.

And it's quite possible to disapprove of benefit fraud and tax evasion; they are not mutually exclusive. But to suggest that it is wrong to get excited about £1.2 BILLION of stolen money because somewhere else different people (or possibly some of the same people) are stealing even more BILLIONS of money is rather flippant, IMO.

rick_chasey

Greg66 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Agreed.

Still. You know where I'm coming from.

No, I really don't. If your point is that it is reprehensible for a payee to evade tax by under declaring income, I agree.

But if your point is that it is in some way reprehensible for a payer to pay in cash for services (and that seemed to be the thrust of the initial throwaway line), I think you're barking.

And it's quite possible to disapprove of benefit fraud and tax evasion; they are not mutually exclusive. But to suggest that it is wrong to get excited about £1.2 BILLION of stolen money because somewhere else different people (or possibly some of the same people) are stealing even more BILLIONS of money is rather flippant, IMO.

No, but I'm questioning why the smaller figure gets disproportionately more attention and bile.

And the first point was a moral question.

If a guy says to you "it's £100 but i'll do it for £80 if you give me cash", then you know what's going on right? What would you do?

SimonAH

I suspect the reason for the disparate levels of ire are;

1) The dodging of paying tax by corporations is hard to prove, and the details far too complex to understand without a team of expensive lawyers (which is of course how they get away with it)
2) The cheating on benefits is immediate, in your face and easy to comprehend and relate to all the sh1t that us wage slaves go through.

Does it irk me that I work long hours and have to hive my child off to strangers to look after because I can't be there to meet her from school, whilst paying eyewatering taxes - when I can go to a pub in the middle of any given afternoon to see the same faces getting steadily pished. The same faces that I know haven't worked (officially) in twenty years? Yes. It irks me.

Do I see the corporate blackguards dodging taxes with offshore accounts and clever wheezes? No. I get annoyed when I consider it, but it's the dull ache in the background compared to the stanley knife stuck in your eyeball. The dull ache may be medically more serious, but it doesn't affect you in the same way.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Agreed.

Still. You know where I'm coming from.

No, I really don't. If your point is that it is reprehensible for a payee to evade tax by under declaring income, I agree.

But if your point is that it is in some way reprehensible for a payer to pay in cash for services (and that seemed to be the thrust of the initial throwaway line), I think you're barking.

And it's quite possible to disapprove of benefit fraud and tax evasion; they are not mutually exclusive. But to suggest that it is wrong to get excited about £1.2 BILLION of stolen money because somewhere else different people (or possibly some of the same people) are stealing even more BILLIONS of money is rather flippant, IMO.

No, but I'm questioning why the smaller figure gets disproportionately more attention and bile.

And the first point was a moral question.

If a guy says to you "it's £100 but i'll do it for £80 if you give me cash", then you know what's going on right? What would you do?

First: does it? It gets more attention from the circle you move it, but does it get more disproportionately more attention from the general population or the Govt?

Second, I tend to be cynical. I assume his price is £80, and he's trying to kid me into thinking I'm getting a "deal" by offering me a discount from a fictional and inflated price. That and offering me the supposed frisson of excitement of stepping outside my law abiding bubble for a second; to do something that it properly understood, perfectly lawful.

---

You know, I read this thread and I think I can see *exactly* why you were bullied at school. You've picked a bonkers untenable proposition and posted it spoiling for a fight. You're getting one, and a reasoned one at that, but will you back down an inch? Will you fcuk.

I'm going to guess that you were the kid who, when being walloped by the school bully, could be heard to say "That didn't hurt. It didn't hurt a bit. Nor did that."

sketchley

Rick Chasey wrote:

Buy why aren't you incandescent that £15bn is missing through tax fraud?

I note the use of the word fraud and not "avoidance" or "evasion" this time, however without wanting to repeat an old debate, the £15bn figure is quoted as the difference between what HMRC think would be payable if everyone person and company declared all their revenue or income as UK revenue or income rather than legally reclassify it as something else via a tax avoidance scheme. The £15bn is not the the amount lost to illegal tax evasion.

To compare this to incapacity benefits you would need to compare as an example what % of people on incapacity benefit had a disability that qualified them for it but where for example perfectly capable of working if they wanted too and were given the opportunity to do so. This figure is much higher than the 0.8% you were quoting as being the target for "perspective".

This last point goes back to my first post in the thread and yours about targeting incapacity benefit fraud and this quote from professor Steve Forthergill.

"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."

davis

Rick Chasey wrote:

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!

Umm.. How do they get away with that? Do they simply just omit it from their tax returns?

rick_chasey

Greg66 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Agreed.

Still. You know where I'm coming from.

No, I really don't. If your point is that it is reprehensible for a payee to evade tax by under declaring income, I agree.

But if your point is that it is in some way reprehensible for a payer to pay in cash for services (and that seemed to be the thrust of the initial throwaway line), I think you're barking.

And it's quite possible to disapprove of benefit fraud and tax evasion; they are not mutually exclusive. But to suggest that it is wrong to get excited about £1.2 BILLION of stolen money because somewhere else different people (or possibly some of the same people) are stealing even more BILLIONS of money is rather flippant, IMO.

No, but I'm questioning why the smaller figure gets disproportionately more attention and bile.

And the first point was a moral question.

If a guy says to you "it's £100 but i'll do it for £80 if you give me cash", then you know what's going on right? What would you do?

First: does it? It gets more attention from the circle you move it, but does it get more disproportionately more attention from the general population or the Govt?

Second, I tend to be cynical. I assume his price is £80, and he's trying to kid me into thinking I'm getting a "deal" by offering me a discount from a fictional and inflated price. That and offering me the supposed frisson of excitement of stepping outside my law abiding bubble for a second; to do something that it properly understood, perfectly lawful.

---

You know, I read this thread and I think I can see *exactly* why you were bullied at school. You've picked a bonkers untenable proposition and posted it spoiling for a fight. You're getting one, and a reasoned one at that, but will you back down an inch? Will you fcuk.

I'm going to guess that you were the kid who, when being walloped by the school bully, could be heard to say "That didn't hurt. It didn't hurt a bit. Nor did that."

The first half was reasonable.

The second half makes me think you're a c*nt.

I'm not going to engage with you on this forum anymore.

sketchley

Rick Chasey wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

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!

You don't have to declare that http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAnd ... DG_4017804

No, you always declare. The Tax man can decide in light of the rule if that income is taxable or not.

Ahem "If you don't normally receive a tax return and your receipts are below the tax-free thresholds for the scheme, the tax exemption is automatic so you don't need to do anything."

rick_chasey

davis wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

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!

Umm.. How do they get away with that? Do they simply just omit it from their tax returns?

Exactly.

rick_chasey

Sketchley wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

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!

You don't have to declare that http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAnd ... DG_4017804

No, you always declare. The Tax man can decide in light of the rule if that income is taxable or not.

Ahem "If you don't normally receive a tax return and your receipts are below the tax-free thresholds for the scheme, the tax exemption is automatic so you don't need to do anything."

At £700 a month you do. This London!

(though that was news to me. I thought, if you had income, you declared it)

sketchley

@ £700 they would not be on a rent a room scheme and the rules for renting out a residential property would apply. Tax is payable on profit only. Mortgage interest, letting agents and other costs can be deducted to leave no net profit from the rental. Then you do not need to declare.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAnd ... G_10013435

davis

Rick Chasey wrote:

davis wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Seem tax fraud costs £15bn.
Lot in my office don't declare for rent they get from their tenants but go nuts over benefit cheats...

Umm.. How do they get away with that? Do they simply just omit it from their tax returns?

Exactly.

...*boggle*. Ever been tempted to shop them?