Re: Benefits Fraud

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[Rhiannon]

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.

[jeremyp]

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?

[jeremyp]

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?

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Rhiannon]

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.

[Rhiannon]

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.

[Anchorman]

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?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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

[Robbie]

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).

[jeremyp]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Anchorman]

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.

[SteveH]

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.)

[floo]

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!

[SteveH]

That says it all about you and people like you!

What, pray, is that supposed to mean?

[Robbie]

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.

[SteveH]

What, pray, is that supposed to mean?

I suppose I'll never know, now that she's flounced...

[jeremyp]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Rhiannon]

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’.

[Anchorman]

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.

[Rhiannon]

That says it all about you and people like you!

I’m not sure it’s Floo who is being insulted here.