Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: floo on February 12, 2018, 08:35:44 AM
-
Yes it is.
I've only seen a few bits here and there. Last time was months ago, I caught the end of the early morning show and Kyle was pontificating about people on benefits and encouraging people to report their neighbours if they thought they were claiming and doing some work at the same time.
I was horrified at the idea of people snooping and telling tales on their neighbours & Kyle has no idea how difficult it is for them to make ends meet on benefits. So I've avoided the show since.
Benefit fraudsters should be outed, it isn't fair on genuine claimants.
-
Benefit fraudsters should be outed, it isn't fair on genuine claimants.
And who should do the outting?
-
And who should do the outting?
If I knew for certain someone was claiming benefits fraudulently, I would out them.
-
If I knew for certain someone was claiming benefits fraudulently, I would out them.
How would you know for sure that fraud was being committed and would you take responsibility for what the ramifications of your actions might be?
-
How would you know for sure that fraud was being committed and would you take responsibility for what the ramifications of your actions might be?
I would have to be absolutely sure before I did it, and be prepared for any ramifications which ensued. Apart from my husband who receives a disability benefit, I am not aware of anyone else in my orbit who receives benefits of any sort. I should add that when he first came out of hospital my husband got a higher benefit than he does now, as he needed a wheelchair to start with. As soon as his walking got better, we informed the powers that be, so he gets a lower level of benefit now.
-
Benefit fraudsters should be outed, it isn't fair on genuine claimants.
A form of "Snidewatch"?
That is ridiculous.
-
A form of "Snidewatch"?
That is ridiculous.
Why is it ridiculous? I would report any other crime too, including anything committed by my own family.
-
I reckon some of my neighbours are in the black economy, i.e. taking cash for various services, and avoiding tax, but there is no way in hell that I would shop them. I could not look them in the eye again.
-
If you knew one of your neighbours was a murderer or a paedophile would you still keep quiet? People who are benefit fraudsters, or tax evaders do this country no good at all.
-
If you knew one of your neighbours was a murderer or a paedophile would you still keep quiet? People who are benefit fraudsters, or tax evaders do this country no good at all.
That comparison is a bit of a stretch, isn't it? Are you comparing the cash economy with murder? I value my relationships with some people over their illegal actions.
-
That comparison is a bit of a stretch, isn't it? Are you comparing the cash economy with murder? I value my relationships with some people over their illegal actions.
Crime is crime and should be reported in my opinion. I would not wish to have anything to do with anyone involved in any sort of crime.
-
Crime is crime and should be reported in my opinion. I would not wish to have anything to do with anyone involved in any sort of crime.
What about men who had sex with each other before it was legal?
-
What about men who had sex with each other before it was legal?
That isn't a crime and never should never have been classed as one. Benefit and tax fraud are and will always be considered so, because they do a lot of harm to our economy.
-
That isn't a crime and never should never have been classed as one. Benefit and tax fraud are and will always be considered so, because they do a lot of harm to our economy.
So basically you will snitch on anybody who you think breaks your own rules?
-
That isn't a crime and never should never have been classed as one. Benefit and tax fraud are and will always be considered so, because they do a lot of harm to our economy.
So it isn't a principle about being against the law- it's just what you do and don't agree with.
-
That's a good point NS (about the old homosexuality laws).
I'm as sure as one can be that none of my neighbours claim benefit but I do see people in the course of my work who do. They come to see me and I go to their homes. Many are single parents. I'm aware, without being told, some will do a bit of child minding, cleaning, even hairdressing. It's not my business, "I know nothing", and do not grudge any one of them a few extra quid here and there.
We hear in the media of people who defraud the Benefits Agency by many thousands of pounds but they are rare. The vast majority of claimants don't.
At times someone will find a job, perhaps on a contract, and come off benefit; if and when the job comes to an end, it takes a while for benefits to be reinstated & that causes untold anxiety and hardship.
I always think, "That could be me or mine"; very, very unlikely but none of us know what lies ahead.
As for not having anything to do with someone who has committed a crime, who knows what people have done if you don't know them that well, they don't have to tell you! They're still people. We all make mistakes. I wouldn't hold a past mistake against anyone (I'm talking about petty crime here).
The only thing I would report to the police would be suspected abuse of any kind, if I saw someone legging it across my neighbour's lawn (which I can't really see unless I deliberately look out of one particular upstairs window) carrying a swagbag, dripping silverware and jewellery, or things of that kind.
-
So basically you will snitch on anybody who you think breaks your own rules?
Not my rules! I think many crimes would be more easily solved if people were prepared to 'snitch' as you put it. If someone robbed you, and a neighbour knew who it was but refused to 'snitch', would you condone their action?
-
I reckon some of my neighbours are in the black economy, i.e. taking cash for various services, and avoiding tax, but there is no way in hell that I would shop them. I could not look them in the eye again.
Quite right too wigginhall, we all pay a lot of tax so can't blame people for keeping a bit of income to themselves.
I too wouldn't be able to look them in the eye if I snitched for something like that, it would have to be far more serious such as I outlined in my previous post.
-
I wouldn't have many friends or family left if I grassed on all the law breakers! But I was brought up in a strong non-grass culture, except for major stuff obviously. I remember when a ton of my friends would slope off to the park to take acid, highly illegal.
-
Not my rules! I think many crimes would be more easily solved if people were prepared to 'snitch' as you put it. If someone robbed you, and a neighbour knew who it was but refused to 'snitch', would you condone their action?
If snitching meant that they spent the rest of their lives looking over their shoulders, then yes I would understand their situation.
-
If snitching meant that they spent the rest of their lives looking over their shoulders, then yes I would understand their situation.
That says it all!
-
Quite right too wigginhall, we all pay a lot of tax so can't blame people for keeping a bit of income to themselves.
I too wouldn't be able to look them in the eye if I snitched for something like that, it would have to be far more serious such as I outlined in my previous post.
Do people on benefits pay a lot of tax? Surely this just means Amazon are OK?
-
I was talking about people in employment, NS, who might do an occasional little private job for cash. No more than that.
-
I was talking about people in employment, NS, who might do an occasional little private job for cash. No more than that.
So not all. And if it isn't a principle, how much is too much?
-
That's a good question, as local builders take cash frequently, and they are not poor men, as far as I can see. I still would not grass on them.
-
So not all. And if it isn't a principle, how much is too much?
I have no idea. Maybe you have an idea of how much & will share it, so we can think more about it. Of course there are some rich people who are greedy and companies who know all the dodges but that's different to someone who finds it hard to make ends meet and welcomes a little extra cash.
Like wigginhall, I would not snitch on them anyway. The idea of snooping into the private business of others is abhorrent to me, I'm happy to leave it to income tax officials.
Doesn't apply to me, eg I don't design websites, do hair, fix cars or washing machines & don't need extra income. I'm paid a salary from which tax is deducted, from that point of view life is simple for which I'm grateful. However I'm well aware it's less simple for others.
-
I have no idea. Maybe you have an idea of how much & will share it, so we can think more about it. Of course there are some rich people who are greedy and companies who know all the dodges but that's different to someone who finds it hard to make ends meet and welcomes a little extra cash.
Like wigginhall, I would not snitch on them anyway. The idea of snooping into the private business of others is abhorrent to me, I'm happy to leave it to income tax officials.
Doesn't apply to me, eg I don't design websites, do hair, fix cars or washing machines & don't need extra income. I'm paid a salary from which tax is deducted, from that point of view life is simple for which I'm grateful. However I'm well aware it's less simple for others.
Why is it different?
-
That says it all!
Yes it means that I have empathy with people who sometimes have to work outside the law so as to feed themselves. Have you ever read Les Miserables?
-
Exactly, Humph. People who would not operate outside the law if their income was better. There but for the grace, etc.
-
If you knew one of your neighbours was a murderer or a paedophile would you still keep quiet? People who are benefit fraudsters, or tax evaders do this country no good at all.
Christ.
Ok, leaving aside your totally bizarre comparison, I’ll ask again: how can you be sure someone was claiming fraudulently?
And what percentage of benefits do you think is claimed by benefit frauds?
-
That's a good question, as local builders take cash frequently, and they are not poor men, as far as I can see. I still would not grass on them.
Agree, I don’t think I break the law but I don’t think I’m so perfect I can dump others in the shit. What if they lose their house? Their spouse?
-
And I need to say that we are talking very different things here. A tradesperson asking for cash in hand is almost certainly pulling a fast one. How can anyone tell that a benefit claimant is doing so fraudulently?
-
I wouldn't have many friends or family left if I grassed on all the law breakers! But I was brought up in a strong non-grass culture, except for major stuff obviously. I remember when a ton of my friends would slope off to the park to take acid, highly illegal.
I too came from a non-grass culture but that then became an excuse to protect bullies, sexual harassers, domestic abusers etc. I guess the question people should ask is whether someone/people will be protected if Person X gets grassed up. In the case of claiming benefit it seems to me that a person/people could be placed at risk, through not having money for food or fuel while the allegation is investigated for example.
-
And I need to say that we are talking very different things here. A tradesperson asking for cash in hand is almost certainly pulling a fast one. How can anyone tell that a benefit claimant is doing so fraudulently?
and of course if you pay them you are participating.
-
I too came from a non-grass culture but that then became an excuse to protect bullies, sexual harassers, domestic abusers etc. I guess the question people should ask is whether someone/people will be protected if Person X gets grassed up. In the case of claiming benefit it seems to me that a person/people could be placed at risk, through not having money for food or fuel while the allegation is investigated for example.
Yes,it's easy to forget what such an attitude has covered.
-
IIRC the amount of benefit fraud that takes place is miniscule as compared to the amount of tax fraud and yet many more resources are put into detecting the former rather than the latter.
It speaks volumes for the attitudes of those that supposedly govern us.
-
Yes,it's easy to forget what such an attitude has covered.
As far as I’m concerned it’s a case of trying to do ‘less harm’. It’s harmful not to speak up when you know there’s abuse. Grassing a suspected benefit fraud...no, the risks of doing harm are way too high.
-
As far as I’m concerned it’s a case of trying to do ‘less harm’. It’s harmful not to speak up when you know there’s abuse. Grassing a suspected benefit fraud...no, the risks of doing harm are way too high.
Yes, that makes sense to me.
-
I hope I never have to out anyone, I am not aware of any tax dodgers or benefit fraudsters among the people with whom I am acquainted.
-
I hope I never have to out anyone, I am not aware of any tax dodgers or benefit fraudsters among the people with whom I am acquainted.
What level of evidence do you require to ‘out’ a benefit fraud? If you knew someone claimed disability benefit for example, and you saw them on the beach or knew they sold wooden toys that they made on eBay sometimes, would that be enough?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/01/spy-on-your-neighbour-britain-demonisation-benefit-claimants-disabled-people
-
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/27/false-benefit-fraud-allegations
-
I reckon some of my neighbours are in the black economy, i.e. taking cash for various services, and avoiding tax, but there is no way in hell that I would shop them. I could not look them in the eye again.
Yes, that's why I can't look Jimmy Carr in the eye.
-
So basically you will snitch on anybody who you think breaks your own rules?
It's not just her rules, to be fair.
I'm conflicted on this one, because Floo is technically right, but I would almost certainly turn a blind eye if somebody I knew was doing it.
-
I am feeling a little miffed that I have been made out to be the bad person for doing what I consider morally right. I would only inform the powers that be if I knew for sure someone was doing something criminal.
-
I am feeling a little miffed that I have been made out to be the bad person for doing what I consider morally right. I would only inform the powers that be if I knew for sure someone was doing something criminal.
I mentioned Les Miserables above, you should go and see it, not many in the audience cheer on Inspector Javert.
-
I mentioned Les Miserables above, you should go and see it, not many in the audience cheer on Inspector Javert.
YAWN!
-
YAWN!
The point is though that when you said you wouldn't have shopped two gay men before homosexual sex was legal, some see someone making enough money to feed their family as ok even if it is against the law. It's simply a disagreement of what law breaking you are willing to turn a blind eye to.
-
Cheating the benefits system is a crime, homosexuality is no more a crime than being left-handed.
-
Cheating the benefits system is a crime, homosexuality is no more a crime than being left-handed.
But it was a crime, and you have stated that you wouldn't have reported it when it was,
-
I am feeling a little miffed that I have been made out to be the bad person for doing what I consider morally right. I would only inform the powers that be if I knew for sure someone was doing something criminal.
I dislike your morality on this issue. I view it as harmful to society.
-
I hope I never have to out anyone, I am not aware of any tax dodgers or benefit fraudsters among the people with whom I am acquainted.
Have you ever paid cash in hand for a job?
If you have you'll need to arrest yourself for aiding and abetting a crime.
-
I dislike your morality on this issue. I view it as harmful to society.
I don't like it either but I honestly think LR does not come across people who are struggling on benefits. If she did it's likely she would feel differently.
Littleroses, Humph's suggestion of 'Les Miserables' is relevant & doesn't warrant a yawn. It's a very insightful and moral story; I first read it in French when I was at school, it was a set book. I've read it again since and seen a film on TV more than once (not the musical); you'll find a synopsis on 'net if you don't feel like wading through the book.
It's a sad state of affairs when people are grassing up neighbours for financial issues. Honestly, as I and Wigginhall said earlier in the thread, that should be reserved for more serious offences like abuse or house robbery. People on benefits struggle.
-
I don't like it either but I honestly think LR does not come across people who are struggling on benefits. If she did it's likely she would feel differently.
Littleroses, Humph's suggestion of 'Les Miserables' is relevant & doesn't warrant a yawn. It's a very insightful and moral story; I first read it in French when I was at school, it was a set book. I've read it again since and seen a film on TV more than once (not the musical); you'll find a synopsis on 'net if you don't feel like wading through the book.
It's a sad state of affairs when people are grassing up neighbours for financial issues. Honestly, as I and Wigginhall said earlier in the thread, that should be reserved for more serious offences like abuse or house robbery. People on benefits struggle.
Exactly. And with the figure of complainants being ‘shopped’ who genuinely are committing fraud being less than one percent, we have a system that is encouraging hate, and hate of the most vulnerable. I don’t know if Floo read my link earlier about a disabled man who gets ‘scrounger’ shouted at him in the street and who is now needing to be rehoused. That is what this ‘grass a scriunger’ culture enables. It’s divide and rule.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/12/disability-benefit-appeals-department-for-work-and-pensions-figures
-
Certainly is. Last year I was involved at work with a woman who had had her Personal Independence
claim refused, she had previously received Disability Living Allowance (not means tested, anyone can claim). It was so unjust. I could go on all day about DLA/PIP but won't as I'm going back to work now.
-
Cheating the benefits system is a crime, homosexuality is no more a crime than being left-handed.
This is very disingenuous. You must know that gay sex used to be illegal, not that long ago. Presumably, if you had had two gay neighbours, you would have told the police, and watched them go to jail?
-
This is very disingenuous. You must know that gay sex used to be illegal, not that long ago. Presumably, if you had had two gay neighbours, you would have told the police, and watched them go to jail?
There does seem to be some confusion in LR's mind over what is legal and what is moral. It is as JeremyP said upthread a very difficult issue on which you can easily feel conflicted. I do know of people who are indulging in some evasion re the tax system and who are making some money out of it. Do I shop them? They are people I like who I have known a long time - is their crime as big as the evasion undertaken by the likes of Amazon etc, certainly not. So in my mind if the govt isn't prepared to tackle Amazon properly why should I shop my friends. It's not something I feel comfortable about - but I would feel a lot more uncomfortable about doing something about it. Perhaps if the government and the law had more stringent restrictions and rules in this respect people would not be able to get round things so easily. I really don't know what the answer is. I no what the answer isn't - and that is to indulge in a holier than thou approach when you've never had to walk a mile in that particular pair of high heels.
-
I find tax avoidance vastly different from benefit fraud, which is what this thread was originally about. Equally I find a single mum getting a bit of cash for selling Avon in her free time different to the Jimmy Carr thing.
-
I find tax avoidance vastly different from benefit fraud, which is what this thread was originally about.
Yes I'd agree. I was just highlighting that even in an area where I would think I would be more likely to do something I still find it difficult to do on a personal level and given that the government is clearly aware of all sorts of malpractice by multinationals and are still unwilling to tackle them, but still insist on treating benefit claimants as criminals by the mere fact that they are claimants, means that I don't think a couple of my friends making a bit more by under-declaring income is something I am going to lose sleep over or get all moral about.
Moral indignation always seems to me to be some kind of way of bigging oneself up. It is one of the things I find most repellent about human nature - my own included.
-
I dislike your morality on this issue. I view it as harmful to society.
So people should be permitted to fraudulently claim benefits?
-
So people should be permitted to fraudulently claim benefits?
That is the job of the authorities to decide. Not you.
You haven’t answered the question I posed earlier. What kinds of evidence would you decide was adequate before shopping someone?
-
I am going to exit from this thread as my BP is rising.
-
Floo, you state opinions but don’t then answer questions when asked. You might actually have a case if you did so. As it is it just looks evasive.
-
So people should be permitted to fraudulently claim benefits?
Benefit Fraud for the year Apr 2016 - Mar 2017 amounted to £2 billion, according to Government statistics.
-
Benefit Fraud for the year Apr 2016 - Mar 2017 amounted to £2 billion, according to Government statistics.
Yes. However:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3279222/How-13BILLION-benefits-not-claimed-year-including-half-people-dole.html#ixzz3p6H2xgHc
And that's the Daily Mail!
-
Benefit Fraud for the year Apr 2016 - Mar 2017 amounted to £2 billion, according to Government statistics.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39980793
It’s 1.1% of the total budget, and includes overpayments made in error.
As opposed to the 90% plus percent of ‘cheats’ reported by neighbours who turned out to be completely blameless.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39980793
It’s 1.1% of the total budget, and includes overpayments made in error.
As opposed to the 90% plus percent of ‘cheats’ reported by neighbours who turned out to be completely blameless.
Spot on. "Rat on a rat" which as I recall was the governments campaign slogan, turned into "Snidewatch".
-
I find it difficult to understand how someone can grass up a neighbour over a few quid but there you go.
Rhiannon, glad you posted that link about unclaimed benefits, it's something that annoys me. The PIP coffers alone are bursting and they dare to turn down genuine claimants. The money is just sitting there! It's not as if the government are using it for some good purpose.
-
It’s amazing the difference that a few quid can make too. Not just the treats that so many take for granted - fish and chips, or a trip to the cinema - but how many times a kettle can be boiled on a day, or whether someone can buy a piece of fresh fruit.
-
Yes & things like hair cuts, even if you go somewhere cheap it costs and especially so if you have kids.
I find it quite heartbreaking that some people are so damned mean. Amongst the people I see who are on benefits, I come across gestures of great generosity in all sorts of ways and am humbled by it.
-
It's partly a community issue for me. I'm not going to report various neighbours who are fiddling tax, because they are neighbours or friends. I have a relationship with them, and for me, that supercedes issues of legality, barring major crime of course. Half my friends used to take drugs as if there was no tomorrow, acid mainly, what am I going to do, go to the cops? Yeah, right.
Old slogan in therapy - you can be right, or you can relate.
-
It's partly a community issue for me. I'm not going to report various neighbours who are fiddling tax, because they are neighbours or friends. I have a relationship with them, and for me, that supercedes issues of legality, barring major crime of course. Half my friends used to take drugs as if there was no tomorrow, acid mainly, what am I going to do, go to the cops? Yeah, right.
Old slogan in therapy - you can be right, or you can relate.
Yes, I agree. What comes out of the stories of those erroneously shopped by neighbours is a fear of who it might have been, what is being said, gossip and name calling. It’s not only unpleasant, it’s intomidating. People are moving home because of it. It’s the opposite of being community minded.
-
I find tax avoidance vastly different from benefit fraud, which is what this thread was originally about.
Yes it is vastly different: tax avoidance is not illegal.
Equally I find a single mum getting a bit of cash for selling Avon in her free time different to the Jimmy Carr thing.
Yes it is different. Not declaring your income is illegal. What Jimmy Carr did is not illegal. I have conflicting thoughts about this. On the one hand, criticising somebody who is doing something perfectly legal whilst condoning breaking the law be somebody else is somewhat hypocritical, but on the other hand, a system which forces people to break the law to have a half way reasonable standard of living is clearly a broken system.
-
Morality and the law are clearly different things when it comes to who needs protecting financially.
-
So where is the line between illegal but morally acceptable behaviour and legal but morally unacceptable behaviour?
I have an ISA which allows me to avoid tax on my savings. Which side of the moral line am I on? What about a builder who takes cash in hand for a job so that he can evade tax?
-
So where is the line between illegal but morally acceptable behaviour and legal but morally unacceptable behaviour?
I have an ISA which allows me to avoid tax on my savings. Which side of the moral line am I on? What about a builder who takes cash in hand for a job so that he can evade tax?
Isn't the line one that each of us here chooses to draw themselves?
-
Isn't the line one that each of us here chooses to draw themselves?
Agree with this.
Also want to add that tax efficiency (eg an ISA) isn’t the same thing as tax avoidance.
-
Agree with this.
Also want to add that tax efficiency (eg an ISA) isn’t the same thing as tax avoidance.
It's a form of tax avoidance. Tax avoidance/efficiency is about putting your money in investment vehicles that attract less tax.
Have you had any thoughts about the builder and his cash in hand?
-
Isn't the line one that each of us here chooses to draw themselves?
So why is Floo getting so much criticism for where she has drawn her personal line?
-
So why is Floo getting so much criticism for where she has drawn her personal line?
Because people are disagreeing with where she draws the line. That we each choose to draw such a line doesn't mean that we don't think that line is drawn in the right place.
-
It's a form of tax avoidance. Tax avoidance/efficiency is about putting your money in investment vehicles that attract less tax.
Have you had any thoughts about the builder and his cash in hand?
No, tax efficiency is the usual stuff that most of us do - as you say, having an ISA. Avoidance schemes are designed to push the law to its limits. They are against the spirit of the law and exploit loopholes. When aware the government closes such loopholes. It does not regard owning an ISA as a ‘loophole’.
The builder’s conscience has to be up to him, just like Jimmy Carr’s. I have never paid cash in hand for building work - I’ve paid my hairdresser in cash but as she’s mobile she doesn’t take card payments. I’ve no reason to believe she doesn’t declare it.
-
Because people are disagreeing with where she draws the line. That we each choose to draw such a line doesn't mean that we don't think that line is drawn in the right place.
And as already noted, it isn’t simply about drawing the line between a builder taking cash in hand, Jimmy Carr and Amazon. It’s about people ‘shopping’ benefit claimants, and the line drawn in my case is that it’s incompatible to do so while trying to live by doing least harm to others.
-
If you knew one of your neighbours was a murderer or a paedophile would you still keep quiet? People who are benefit fraudsters, or tax evaders do this country no good at all.
Do you know how hard it is to exist on benefit?
Which would you prefer, LR; a small amount of illegal work on the side, or no food on the table, no light or heat in a house riddled with damp?
Bacause that's the stark choice facing a lot of people, you know - some of them actuall claiming benefit - legally - whilst holding a very low paid job as well.
Do you think they enjoy depending on food banks, or breaking the law in order to exist?
Because that's what most of the 'black economy' is; putting a few pounds in the pocket to avoid destitution.
Of course it's not right - but the pathetic levels of benefit aren't right either.
Most of these people live in areas of high unemployment, poverty and depravation, so all they'll ever manage to earn IS a fw quid.
What would you do?
Freeze, starve or try to put food on your family's table?
-
Just thought I'd mention, when it comes to tax, it is possible to earn some money without having to pay tax or declare it to HMRC.
E.g if you earn under £1000 per tax year doing a trade e.g. selling stuff on Ebay or doing casual work or handyman jobs or you are a teacher and you also tutor someone on the side you don't need to declare that money to HMRC provided you are making under the £1k limit in that trade. If you earn over £1k then you have to declare it and pay the relevant tax.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/mar/21/sharing-economy-1000-tax-free-allowances-ebay-airbnb-micro-entrepreneurs
Here are some other ways to make money without paying tax o it.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-4445308/7-crafty-ways-boost-income-without-paying-tax.html
-
Very kind post from Anchorman & good information from Gabriella (I was particularly interested in the airbnb because I know someone who is going to do that).
-
Because people are disagreeing with where she draws the line. That we each choose to draw such a line doesn't mean that we don't think that line is drawn in the right place.
People are disagreeing quite harshly. Words like "grass" and "snooper" have been used.
-
Do you know how hard it is to exist on benefit?
Which would you prefer, LR; a small amount of illegal work on the side, or no food on the table, no light or heat in a house riddled with damp?
Bacause that's the stark choice facing a lot of people, you know - some of them actuall claiming benefit - legally - whilst holding a very low paid job as well.
Do you think they enjoy depending on food banks, or breaking the law in order to exist?
Because that's what most of the 'black economy' is; putting a few pounds in the pocket to avoid destitution.
Of course it's not right - but the pathetic levels of benefit aren't right either.
Most of these people live in areas of high unemployment, poverty and depravation, so all they'll ever manage to earn IS a fw quid.
What would you do?
Freeze, starve or try to put food on your family's table?
Can you put a figure on how much of the black economy is due to people who would otherwise starve or freeze and how much of it is people who have reasonably paying jobs and for whom it is not necessary to defraud the exchequer?
I would also bet interested to know what tax fraud relative to benefit fraud. Whilst I don't know the answer to the first point, I'd be willing to bet that tax fraud dwarfs benefit fraud.
-
People are disagreeing quite harshly. Words like "grass" and "snooper" have been used.
And? People disagree harshly about what they think is right or wrong. Not sure what point you are making.
-
Can you put a figure on how much of the black economy is due to people who would otherwise starve or freeze and how much of it is people who have reasonably paying jobs and for whom it is not necessary to defraud the exchequer?
I would also bet interested to know what tax fraud relative to benefit fraud. Whilst I don't know the answer to the first point, I'd be willing to bet that tax fraud dwarfs benefit fraud.
No - but I CAN put a name to several individuals caught in the trap of inadequate benefit, damp-infested housing, no chance whatsoever of gainful employment due to age and circumstance, but who will do 'homers' for cash.
If it improves their othewise miserable situation and keeps them from depending on charity and food banks, then, sorry, the law - Westminster law - is a ass.
-
Not my rules! I think many crimes would be more easily solved if people were prepared to 'snitch' as you put it. If someone robbed you, and a neighbour knew who it was but refused to 'snitch', would you condone their action?
I'd grass up burglars or drug dealers - real criminals - but not people who claimed benefit while working. I know from my own experience that the the DWP staff are such hard-hearted arse-holes that if you try to go by the rules, you're likely to lose your benefit for ages. If an unemployed person gets a couple of weeks' work and is foolish enough to tell the DWP, they'll stop their benefit like a shot, but when the work comes to an end and they try to sign on again, they could find themselves with no benefits for weeks before the DWP grudgingly puts them back on benefit. (There may be a few decent people working for the DWP, but they are constrained by the system.)
-
I'd grass up burglars or drug dealers - real criminals - but not people who claimed benefit while working. I know from my own experience that the the DWP staff are such hard-hearted arse-holes that if you try to go by the rules, you're likely to lose your benefit for ages. If an unemployed person gets a couple of weeks' work and is foolish enough to tell the DWP, they'll stop their benefit like a shot, but when the work comes to an end and they try to sign on again, they could find themselves with no benefits for weeks before the DWP grudgingly puts them back on benefit. (There may be a few decent people working for the DWP, but they are constrained by the system.)
That says it all about you and people like you! >:(
-
That says it all about you and people like you! >:(
What, pray, is that supposed to mean?
-
I'd grass up burglars or drug dealers - real criminals - but not people who claimed benefit while working. I know from my own experience that the the DWP staff are such hard-hearted arse-holes that if you try to go by the rules, you're likely to lose your benefit for ages. If an unemployed person gets a couple of weeks' work and is foolish enough to tell the DWP, they'll stop their benefit like a shot, but when the work comes to an end and they try to sign on again, they could find themselves with no benefits for weeks before the DWP grudgingly puts them back on benefit. (There may be a few decent people working for the DWP, but they are constrained by the system.)
That is exactly how I feel - never mind the ruthless assessments for Personal Independence Payment.
Floo doesn't come across people on benefits, I reckon. It would be an eye opener for her if she worked with them.
-
What, pray, is that supposed to mean?
I suppose I'll never know, now that she's flounced...
-
And? People disagree harshly about what they think is right or wrong. Not sure what point you are making.
When I asked Rhiannon where she drew the line between morally right but illegal and legal but morally wrong, which was a question that carries an implied criticism of her position, you came back at me effectively saying she can draw it where she likes. Well so can Floo in that case but I didn't see you coming back at the people who called her names saying the same she can draw her line where she likes.
-
I'd grass up burglars or drug dealers - real criminals - but not people who claimed benefit while working.
Burglars take things to which they are not entitled. People who claim benefit take things to which they are not entitled. They are real criminals. It is true that a proportion of them are in desperate financial straits and deserve sympathy and support not putting in the slammer, but to treat every benefit fraudster as if that is the case is somewhat naive.
-
When I asked Rhiannon where she drew the line between morally right but illegal and legal but morally wrong, which was a question that carries an implied criticism of her position, you came back at me effectively saying she can draw it where she likes. Well so can Floo in that case but I didn't see you coming back at the people who called her names saying the same she can draw her line where she likes.
Er no, I didn't say that I thought that wherever people drew the line was fine, and that was made clear by subsequent posts where I covered that wherever people draw the line will lead them to make criticism of others. I was suggesting that we know that this is subjective, and hadn't picked up on any implied criticism of Rhiannon, nor 'come back at you' on it.
-
Burglars take things to which they are not entitled. People who claim benefit take things to which they are not entitled. They are real criminals. It is true that a proportion of them are in desperate financial straits and deserve sympathy and support not putting in the slammer, but to treat every benefit fraudster as if that is the case is somewhat naive.
But nobody is suggesting that as far as I can see. If someone is discovered to be breaking the law then justice must take its course. What Floo advocates is ordinary people reporting other people - neighbours, family - for benefit fraud. She wouldn’t specify what level of evidence she would need before doing so but given that over 90% of cases reportedby the public result in no action most people don’t require a lot - they report on suspicion, often stupid things like seeing a disabled person on a bus, and not fact. We are now in a situation where innocent disabled people are getting abuse in the streets because of the state encouragement to report suspected benefit fraud. People are having to be rehoused. It’s no different to the attacks on refugees and migrants and I really think it’s only a matter of time before a disabled person gets kicked to death for being a ‘scrounger’.
-
That says it all about you and people like you! >:(
Sorry, LR; Back in the real world.....some people who 'go by the rules' end up in graves. I'm sure you'll applaud them doing the right thing, though. Those are the people who, through health or disability issues, go through the inhuman hoops and privatised loopholes the Westminster regime forced on them...the sort of people, some of them with cerebral pasy, epilepsy, mentall illness - even one with Down's syndrome - whom the unqualified nerds at ATOS an other goverment crony pals deemed 'fit for work'...who died during the appeal process or took their own lives.
-
That says it all about you and people like you! >:(
I’m not sure it’s Floo who is being insulted here.
-
A site paying homage to those who obeyed the rules to the letter. Pity they're dead, really. https://calumslist.org/2-2/
-
A site paying homage to those who obeyed the rules to the letter. Pity they're dead, really. https://calumslist.org/2-2/
There is no doubt that there are very serious problems with the benefits system.
However there is also no doubt that some people cheating the benefits system are not in desperate straits like the people on your list. The same applies to the tax system. These people are actually harming the people who are entitled to the money and really need it because it isn't there to be spent on them.
-
A couple of weeks ago in the Bromley Times (Humph probably read it), I no longer have the paper so am repeating from memory, there was a report of a man who claimed for all sorts because - he said - he lost home, wife and family in the Grenfell fire; he was housed in Bromley. Turned out he had no-one in the fire!
Certainly people like him have to be punished for cashing in fraudulently on the back of other people's misery.
What we were talking about on here was mainly about people doing small cash jobs - like cleaning or child minding - as well as claiming benefit. Not in same category tho' take your points about still being illegal and we all draw the line in different places.
Also the DLA changed to PIP and many genuine people have been turned down for PIP, causing extreme hardship.
I understand floo whom I believe doesn't have anything directly to do with people on benefit so relies on what she reads in media. If she had a job that brought her into contact with 'poor' people she would feel differently.
-
This is the person you are referring to, I think, Robbie.
http://news.met.police.uk/news/man-jailed-for-fraud-after-grenfell-tower-fire-293943
-
There is no doubt that there are very serious problems with the benefits system.
However there is also no doubt that some people cheating the benefits system are not in desperate straits like the people on your list. The same applies to the tax system. These people are actually harming the people who are entitled to the money and really need it because it isn't there to be spent on them.
But they are in the minority - some 1% of claimants or thereabouts.
-
Thank you NS.
-
A couple of weeks ago in the Bromley Times (Humph probably read it), I no longer have the paper so am repeating from memory, there was a report of a man who claimed for all sorts because - he said - he lost home, wife and family in the Grenfell fire; he was housed in Bromley. Turned out he had no-one in the fire!
Certainly people like him have to be punished for cashing in fraudulently on the back of other people's misery.
What we were talking about on here was mainly about people doing small cash jobs - like cleaning or child minding - as well as claiming benefit. Not in same category tho' take your points about still being illegal and we all draw the line in different places.
Also the DLA changed to PIP and many genuine people have been turned down for PIP, causing extreme hardship.
I understand floo whom I believe doesn't have anything directly to do with people on benefit so relies on what she reads in media. If she had a job that brought her into contact with 'poor' people she would feel differently.
The man concerned man lived in Beckenham, not Bromley.
As for Floo, she seems to make up her mind instantly as to who is a goodie or a baddie, and posts accordingly.
-
Part of Beckenham is in Bromley, London Borough, the rest in Lewisham. Part of Downham is in Bromley, London Borough & part in Lewisham (other thread).
-
Part of Beckenham is in Bromley, London Borough, the rest in Lewisham. Part of Downham is in Bromley, London Borough & part in Lewisham (other thread).
Don't try to wind me up.
Beckenham is a separate town from Bromley.
Ask anybody who lives there.
-
I do know people who live there thank you, always have. Aunt and Uncle, now deceased, lived in Clockhouse Road. Sloane Hospital is there. Bowie lived in Foxgrove Road for a time but the houses there have been pulled down. Beckenham is very nice unless you stray into the Penge end where it becomes dodgy (with character).