Benefit fraud measures outlined

[peasepud 59]

The government has set out a series of measures to tackle benefit fraud, as ministers spend the weekend finalising spending cuts.

 

The steps would mean anyone with three convictions could forfeit their rights to benefits for up to three years.

 

Chancellor George Osborne told the News of the World that welfare cheats were like muggers who robbed taxpayers of billions of pounds a year.

 

Mr Osborne will announce the results of the Spending Review on Wednesday.

Data tracking

 

The chancellor said cheating the benefit system was "unacceptable at the best of times and totally immoral" when the UK has a huge budget deficit.

 

Mr Osborne said: "Frankly, a welfare cheat is no different from someone who comes up and robs you in the street. It's your money."

 

Under the new scheme every single welfare offence - no matter how minor - would mean an immediate fine of £50.

 

The government is promising to share more data with credit reference agencies to find patterns of offending.

 

It is also recruiting 200 new inspectors, creating a mobile task force to go into areas with high rates of fraud and check every claim individually.

 

The strategy, to be unveiled on Monday, will use high-tech data tracking techniques between government offices and credit reference agencies.

 

Welfare reform minister Lord Freud said: "Fraud and error is costing the government and the taxpayer £5bn a year - this is unfair and unacceptable.

 

"We are reforming the system and stepping up our efforts to catch the benefit and tax cheats who are stealing money which is meant for the most vulnerable people in our society.

 

"When people are convicted we will get back the money we are owed by introducing tough punishments and stripping the assets of criminal gangs - my message to them is that benefit fraud is a crime that just doesn't pay."

 

BBC political correspondent Vicky Young says the key message from ministers as they approach the Spending Review is that the burden of cutting the deficit will be shared.

 

Even at this late stage, there is speculation that child benefit could be restricted further - axing the payment for children over 16 would save the Treasury about £2bn a year.

 

This is where we should be focussing and its about time it happened but I have a couple of reservations with the approach.

 

Firstly, 200 new staff? it needs 2000, we have them sitting, doing nothing so lets get other civil servants in, trained and out there. 200 to cover the country only works out at 4 per county (and thats not taking into account Scotland and Wales). 4 fraud inspectors each to cover the likes of North Yorkshire? Greater London etc?

 

My second reservation is the £50 fine regardless of size, these fines will no doubt be used to measure the performance of the respective teams. I think this will mean targetting the easy cases while the more complicated (and bigger) offenders are put to one side.

 

What we'll get in a years time is an announcement that we've "caught 15000 extra benefit cheats" most of those will be poor blokes who've painted someones fence to get a little extra in for the Christmas dinner plate.

 

Target the big offenders, those that sit on Incapacity without working a day in their lives, those that somehow manage to turn up at the dole in a Jag. Hit those and you'll no doubt clear up some crime statistics as well.

[Happy Face 29]

This is where we should be focussing and its about time it happened but I have a couple of reservations with the approach.

 

 

Not sure if I agree.

 

You can spend as much chasing welfare fraud as you save catching individuals. It's paltry sums.

 

Corporate tax evasion is a much more costly crime, and a far more lucrative target.....but the tories have pledged a more conciliatory approach to it, relaxing regulations gladly allowing billions in tax revenue to funnel out.

 

Look at the vodafone case, £1.25bn from a single payer....but it should have been more...they'd set aside £2.2bn.

 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2bc71748-9686-11...144feab49a.html

[Park Life 71]

Agree with Nicos. This is just window dressing to keep middle england in step. Fat Dave who does my mothers odd jobs and gardening signs on and I respect his efforts to get extra cash for his children once in a while ie Christmans etc..He's also a good source of cheap baccy. Lovely bloke who used to be a ganster of sorts with many funny stories. People like him fighting for survival on the periphery aren't the problem. Big business and banking fraud is, but I guess the pay the politicians to keep quiet. Arm the people!!

[Jusoda Kid 1]

About time something was done about it, doubt it will work

[Park Life 71]

About time something was done about it, doubt it will work

 

They're not likely to stop paying half a million people are they. It's just nonsense to fill this awkward gap till Xmas.

[peasepud 59]

This is where we should be focussing and its about time it happened but I have a couple of reservations with the approach.

 

 

Not sure if I agree.

 

You can spend as much chasing welfare fraud as you save catching individuals. It's paltry sums.

 

I wouldnt say paltry, theres plenty out there who earn a normal wage while still claiming numerous benefits theyre not allowed to. The cost to catch them may run at say 20 man days work for the fraud team. Thats saved in say 3 months once they're off the benefit, in addition to the repayment of all the fiddled benefits and the fine. Add to that the fear factor of his mates, some of those will sign off once they see whats happened to Joe.

 

I agree however that corporation fiddles are even better targets but both should be hit.

[Happy Face 29]

This is where we should be focussing and its about time it happened but I have a couple of reservations with the approach.

 

 

Not sure if I agree.

 

You can spend as much chasing welfare fraud as you save catching individuals. It's paltry sums.

 

I wouldnt say paltry, theres plenty out there who earn a normal wage while still claiming numerous benefits theyre not allowed to. The cost to catch them may run at say 20 man days work for the fraud team. Thats saved in say 3 months once they're off the benefit, in addition to the repayment of all the fiddled benefits and the fine. Add to that the fear factor of his mates, some of those will sign off once they see whats happened to Joe.

 

I agree however that corporation fiddles are even better targets but both should be hit.

 

I might agree if both were being hit, but it's the opposite.

 

They're going to cut £20bn a year from the budget as it is.

 

Fraud and mistakes only account for 3% of the current total benefits.....you can't cut out mistakes so you're left with a tiny percentage, of which there's only a proportion of which you can prosecute.

 

The banks got us into this shit. It was criminal. But there's not been any accountability whatsoever....they got handed billions to protect their interests...and now the poorest in society have to pay the price.

 

To do this while further loosening the leash on big business and making it easier for them to funnel away more money is disgusting.

[Billy Castell 0]

Go after the tax exiles, companies who move money about to avoid tax, and the fucking banks as well as benefit cheats. The rich are allowed to do what they like, whereas the right wing media attack anyone who is out of a job.

 

Anyway, they'd need to hire 200 people to investigate Bridlington alone. Its full of people pretending to be cripples whilst zipping along to the pub on their spaz chariots.

[PaddockLad 17310]

Go after the tax exiles, companies who move money about to avoid tax, and the fucking banks as well as benefit cheats. The rich are allowed to do what they like, whereas the right wing media attack anyone who is out of a job.

 

Anyway, they'd need to hire 200 people to investigate Bridlington alone. Its full of people pretending to be cripples whilst zipping along to the pub on their spaz chariots.

 

Who is going to want to employ somebody who is termianlly bone idle anyway? and more to the point in these hard times, where are all the fuckin jobs for them to fill? anyone tried to find decent even part time work lately?

 

Philip Green advising the coalition on how to save money across Whitehall departments: "get the misuss to move to Monanco and put your government department in her name and you'll save a fuckin fortune in tax, it worked a treat for me with Arcadia"

 

[Park Life 71]

They have to put something out there before people are distracted by Xmas that's all this is. Will catch no one and save nothing.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

Totally with HF et al on this one, and it boils my piss to be frank.

[LeazesMag 0]

This is where we should be focussing and its about time it happened but I have a couple of reservations with the approach.

 

 

Not sure if I agree.

 

You can spend as much chasing welfare fraud as you save catching individuals. It's paltry sums.

 

Corporate tax evasion is a much more costly crime, and a far more lucrative target.....but the tories have pledged a more conciliatory approach to it, relaxing regulations gladly allowing billions in tax revenue to funnel out.

 

Look at the vodafone case, £1.25bn from a single payer....but it should have been more...they'd set aside £2.2bn.

 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2bc71748-9686-11...144feab49a.html

 

you beat me to it. Both posts are spot on. Lets see how much the Tories clamp down on their own.....

[toughguymick@hotmail.co.uk 0]

..He's also a good source of cheap baccy. Lovely bloke who used to be a ganster

 

What went wrong?

[peasepud 59]

..He's also a good source of cheap baccy. Lovely bloke who used to be a ganster

 

What went wrong?

 

I'll tell you what mate, you must be shitting fucking bricks at this announcement

[spongebob toonpants 4005]

Another obviously unworkable bit of daily mail pleasing nonsense. You've got an unmarried mother of who makes three false claims, and she's going to get no benfits for three years. What is going to happen to the kids? We are just going to make them homeless and let them starve I take.

 

Ill thought out window dressing bullshit

[Howmanheyman 33341]

The government has set out a series of measures to tackle benefit fraud, as ministers spend the weekend finalising spending cuts.

 

The steps would mean anyone with three convictions could forfeit their rights to benefits for up to three years.

 

Chancellor George Osborne told the News of the World that welfare cheats were like muggers who robbed taxpayers of billions of pounds a year.

 

Mr Osborne will announce the results of the Spending Review on Wednesday.

Data tracking

 

The chancellor said cheating the benefit system was "unacceptable at the best of times and totally immoral" when the UK has a huge budget deficit.

 

Mr Osborne said: "Frankly, a welfare cheat is no different from someone who comes up and robs you in the street. It's your money."

 

Under the new scheme every single welfare offence - no matter how minor - would mean an immediate fine of £50.

 

The government is promising to share more data with credit reference agencies to find patterns of offending.

 

It is also recruiting 200 new inspectors, creating a mobile task force to go into areas with high rates of fraud and check every claim individually.

 

The strategy, to be unveiled on Monday, will use high-tech data tracking techniques between government offices and credit reference agencies.

 

Welfare reform minister Lord Freud said: "Fraud and error is costing the government and the taxpayer £5bn a year - this is unfair and unacceptable.

 

"We are reforming the system and stepping up our efforts to catch the benefit and tax cheats who are stealing money which is meant for the most vulnerable people in our society.

 

"When people are convicted we will get back the money we are owed by introducing tough punishments and stripping the assets of criminal gangs - my message to them is that benefit fraud is a crime that just doesn't pay."

 

BBC political correspondent Vicky Young says the key message from ministers as they approach the Spending Review is that the burden of cutting the deficit will be shared.

 

Even at this late stage, there is speculation that child benefit could be restricted further - axing the payment for children over 16 would save the Treasury about £2bn a year.

 

This is where we should be focussing and its about time it happened but I have a couple of reservations with the approach.

 

Firstly, 200 new staff? it needs 2000, we have them sitting, doing nothing so lets get other civil servants in, trained and out there. 200 to cover the country only works out at 4 per county (and thats not taking into account Scotland and Wales). 4 fraud inspectors each to cover the likes of North Yorkshire? Greater London etc?

 

My second reservation is the £50 fine regardless of size, these fines will no doubt be used to measure the performance of the respective teams. I think this will mean targetting the easy cases while the more complicated (and bigger) offenders are put to one side.

 

What we'll get in a years time is an announcement that we've "caught 15000 extra benefit cheats" most of those will be poor blokes who've painted someones fence to get a little extra in for the Christmas dinner plate.

 

Target the big offenders, those that sit on Incapacity without working a day in their lives, those that somehow manage to turn up at the dole in a Jag. Hit those and you'll no doubt clear up some crime statistics as well.

 

 

This is where we should be focussing and its about time it happened but I have a couple of reservations with the approach.

 

 

Not sure if I agree.

 

You can spend as much chasing welfare fraud as you save catching individuals. It's paltry sums.

 

Corporate tax evasion is a much more costly crime, and a far more lucrative target.....but the tories have pledged a more conciliatory approach to it, relaxing regulations gladly allowing billions in tax revenue to funnel out.

 

Look at the vodafone case, £1.25bn from a single payer....but it should have been more...they'd set aside £2.2bn.

 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2bc71748-9686-11...144feab49a.html

This.

 

They're starting to get stick from the Daily Mail so they get tough with the 'scroungers' to get back onside.

[Kitman 2207]

This is where we should be focussing and its about time it happened but I have a couple of reservations with the approach.

 

 

Not sure if I agree.

 

You can spend as much chasing welfare fraud as you save catching individuals. It's paltry sums.

 

Corporate tax evasion is a much more costly crime, and a far more lucrative target.....but the tories have pledged a more conciliatory approach to it, relaxing regulations gladly allowing billions in tax revenue to funnel out.

 

Look at the vodafone case, £1.25bn from a single payer....but it should have been more...they'd set aside £2.2bn.

 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2bc71748-9686-11...144feab49a.html

 

Haven't seen the Vodafone case but corporation tax evasion is overstated imo. This isn't about companies paying their "fair share" on UK trading profits, it's about corporate groups headquartered in Britain. The Inland Revenue thinks it should be able to tax all overseas profits regardless of whether they're paid back to the UK. However many European and other jurisdictions don't operate on this bases ie Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland. They'll welcome British groups with open arms and they'll still pay their "fair share" of tax on their British profits.

 

In these days of highly mobile capital and labour the question is whether you want corporate groups to be located in Britain with the jobs and spin off business it creates. If the answer is no, we can stick with the present system which has already seen a steady number of British groups relocate to Switzerland, Luxembourg etc. The reality is our tax system is not fit for purpose and needs substantial reform, the Labour govt has known about and ducked this issue for years.

[Kitman 2207]

Wolseley has become the latest company to consider moving abroad for tax reasons. The builders’ merchant proposed a shift to Switzerland as it disclosed a narrower annual pre-tax loss.

 

The FTSE 100 group said on Monday it planned to create New Wolseley, a holding company that would be listed in London but incorporated in Jersey, with a tax residence in Switzerland.

 

Ian Meakins, chief executive, said he had held discussions with the government about keeping Wolseley in the UK but that “their hands were tied by the tax regime”.

 

“If UK tax rates were not so painful to us, then we wouldn’t have to leave,” Mr Meakins said.

 

The move to Zurich, which Mr Meakins said had been under discussion for some time, would cut Wolseley’s underlying tax rate from 34 per cent to 28 per cent, representing a £23m saving in the latest financial year. Implementation is expected to cost £6m.

 

Dissatisfaction about corporate taxes has led to the departure of several companies, among them Ineos, Shire, United Business Media, Charter, Henderson, Regus, Brit Insurance, Informa and WPP.

 

However, the rate of the exodus has slowed over the past 18 months, in part because tax planning became less of a priority for company boards during the recession.

 

Wolseley stressed that it would continue to pay tax on its UK operations and that the 10,000 jobs in the country would be unaffected by the move.

 

 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1d857286-ca09-11...144feab49a.html

[JawD 99]

From my point of view I can understand their stance. The above is a huge organisation employing thousands. Each of those pay tax. They have a responsibility to their shareholders to perform to a certain level. Similarly if high earners were taxed fairly they wouldn't feel the need to move abroad to protect the income they have worked for.

 

What I dislike more are companies shifting their workforce abroad for lower labour costs. I know it's to maximise profits but that directly hits UK employment unlike what wolsley are doing.

 

On the OP, most companies structure their accounts to minimise corporation tax. I even do it and I'm just a small business. It's not illegal but as as a small company I need to remain as profitable as I can by retaining as much GP as I can. Especially in such difficult times. We might right down stock value that isn't shifting etc.

 

Course I don't endorse large scale illegal tax evasion and when we are talking about billions of profit I have little sympathy with the companies but then I would look at other aspects first. How much do they give back to local communities and charities for example?

 

As for benefit fraud, while the numbers are not as large it's likely easier and cheaper to clamp down on and I'm fully behind it. Boils my piss at times what people get away with. Better off on the dole? No wonder when you are ripping the system so much. Why should we work so damn hard Personally and as a business and get taxed so much only to feed these lazy fuckers?

[Happy Face 29]

This is where we should be focussing and its about time it happened but I have a couple of reservations with the approach.

 

 

Not sure if I agree.

 

You can spend as much chasing welfare fraud as you save catching individuals. It's paltry sums.

 

Corporate tax evasion is a much more costly crime, and a far more lucrative target.....but the tories have pledged a more conciliatory approach to it, relaxing regulations gladly allowing billions in tax revenue to funnel out.

 

Look at the vodafone case, £1.25bn from a single payer....but it should have been more...they'd set aside £2.2bn.

 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2bc71748-9686-11...144feab49a.html

 

Haven't seen the Vodafone case but corporation tax evasion is overstated imo. This isn't about companies paying their "fair share" on UK trading profits, it's about corporate groups headquartered in Britain. The Inland Revenue thinks it should be able to tax all overseas profits regardless of whether they're paid back to the UK. However many European and other jurisdictions don't operate on this bases ie Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland. They'll welcome British groups with open arms and they'll still pay their "fair share" of tax on their British profits.

 

In these days of highly mobile capital and labour the question is whether you want corporate groups to be located in Britain with the jobs and spin off business it creates. If the answer is no, we can stick with the present system which has already seen a steady number of British groups relocate to Switzerland, Luxembourg etc. The reality is our tax system is not fit for purpose and needs substantial reform, the Labour govt has known about and ducked this issue for years.

 

It's a doozy like. I'm idealistic and think the government need to be accountable to the people, not to corporate interests.

 

When big business have already kneecapped us, they now hold a gun to our heads saying they'll punish us if we try to hold them accountable. The millions of people that will be plunged into poverty through no fault of their own hold no sway like that. So we have to accept being slapped around like a bitch, cos we can't afford to support ourselves if we leave our abusive spouse.

 

It's the same argument that's seen top rates of tax slashed from 83% in the seventies to 40%....and still the cry from the wealthy is that their obsene incomes are unfairly diminished.

[Happy Face 29]

Why should we work so damn hard Personally and as a business and get taxed so much only to feed these lazy fuckers?

 

Because 100% employment is communism and we want to be a capitalist utopia where you are free to fire anyone you want to. That person is entitled to a safety net.

[JawD 99]

Safety net yes I agree. Ive no issue with genuine people, looking for work, supporting their family. What I do take issue with is those spending money at the bookies or in the club/pub while claiming for a dodgy knee that healed 5 year ago.

[Guest alex]

Everyone does but in reality it's very difficult to do something to stop that without spending more money than you save. That's not to say the government should just give up like.

[Happy Face 29]

Safety net yes I agree. Ive no issue with genuine people, looking for work, supporting their family. What I do take issue with is those spending money at the bookies or in the club/pub while claiming for a dodgy knee that healed 5 year ago.

 

You hold that man playing the system for £60 a fortnight to a higher standard than companies playing the system to save hundreds of thousands (millions and billions) in taxes?

 

Claiming benefits within the law, actually taking other peoples contributions out of the system is portrayed to be a far worse crime in the media (corporate owned) than playing the system to pay in as little as possible in the first place. That's not surprising because it's something we all see everyday and understand. At least the benefit fiddler has the excuse of being desparate for money though.

 

Creative accountancy is lauded, people are pleased that someone has gotten away with it because they have the intelligence to play the system from the top, rather than the duplicity to play it from the bottom.

[ewerk 30714]

Claiming benefits within the law, actually taking other peoples contributions out of the system is portrayed to be a far worse crime in the media (corporate owned) than playing the system to pay in as little as possible in the first place. That's not surprising because it's something we all see everyday and understand. At least the benefit fiddler has the excuse of being desparate for money though.

 

The system needs a two pronged overhaul; the government needs to review what claimants are legally entitled to and to clamp down on those claiming what they're not entitled to.

 

It shouldn't be more profitable to claim benefits than to work. The problem there is largely to do with the benefits that come with having a family coupled with the high cost of child care for those in work. Benefits need to be cut to a level where people have enough to survive, not to live a comfortable life, the government isn't there to provide the unemployed with a comfortable life, it should be to prevent the unemployed from falling into poverty. Not the poverty whereby the kids don't have a PS3 or a mobile phone but the poverty where they can't afford to eat. I know our perception of what constitutes 'poor' has changed but the government need to look at the basic essentials and no more.

 

And I haven't seen much evidence of the government clamping down on benefit thieves/cheats. I hear about these schemes and how doctors should now be assessing what a claimant can do rather than can't do but I'm not aware of any positive results. About a year ago I attempted to shop some I know for benefit theft using a government website for the purpose. What was done? Fuck all. There needs to be people investigating this, because it just leads to long term unemployment and in turn will lead their kids to believing that it's an acceptable way of life when it simply isn't.