Forum Topic

Benefit Fraud does PAY

Following on from a similar post a month or so back, am I missing something or are the penalties for benefit cheats just totally ridiculous - see "Latest" story on the ActonW3 homepage.1) I mean what kind of punishment is being told you have to stay at home from 7pm to 7am?  How are we taxpayers getting our £21,000 back?2) In a second case a women falsely receives nearly £8000 and only has to pay out/back £550!!!All benefit fraudsters must just be laughing at the council and the courts.  How are these sentences in any way a deterrent?

Rupert Picken ● 5854d37 Comments

Yerright.

Rosco White ● 5854d

"am I missing something"Yes, this post from Roy Gillett last month which explained that repayment of the money fraudulently obtained is pursued separately from punishment for the crime.

Richard Jennings ● 5854d

Often repaid at around £5-00 per week by way of deductions. What has always intrigued me is how much overall do benefit cheats who are caught owe the government - going back decades.

George Knox ● 5853d

And how many bugger off back overseas to wherever they may have come from in the first place and the money's written off. A nice little earner.

Rosco White ● 5853d

hmmmmm - £5/week paying back £21,000 - that'd take 4200 weeks or 80 years!

Rupert Picken ● 5853d

Exactly.A FOI request for the keen types.

George Knox ● 5852d

No chance of getting that sort of information - EVER.It would expose yet another example of gross Government incompetence.

Rosco White ● 5852d

It's our money and it's a job for a forensic journalist.Editor please note!

George Knox ● 5852d

"Often repaid at around £5-00 per week by way of deductions.What has always intrigued me is how much overall do benefit cheats who are caught owe the government - going back decades."Would you consider Philip Green of cheating the taxpayer?He recently received a £300 million share dividend which was paid to his wife who resides in the tax haven of Monaco.He avoided paying  tax of over £100million with this little scam.A recent OECD report stated that if the Government plugged the tax loopholes it could collect  £70 BILLION a year in unpaid taxes. http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2010/07/01/benefit-fraud-is-624-times-more-serious-than-tax-evasion/Benefit fraud runs at 3.1 Billion per year. So when you lot on screech about social security scroungers who defraud us and go back to foreign lands think about big Phil on his Lear Jet screwing us all for a lot more than those highlighted on here.

Colin Carroll ● 5852d

ANY type of fraud should be dealt with severely - not a snowball's chance in hell though!

Jean F Fernandez ● 5851d

Colin. It'smuch easier to bash the vulnerable than the virtually impenetrable. You sort of have a point apart from the obvious that generally no fraud is acceptable.However using your figure concerning benefits fraud multiplied by a backlog of say 20 years, then how much is the total owing to the government? I suspect there are debts going back even further.

George Knox ● 5851d

However much benefit fraud is, it is likely to have been dwarfed by Tax fraud in every year.

Colin Carroll ● 5851d

OK so it seems from the update in "Latest News" that it'll take 40 years to pay off the defrauded amount in the earlier story. I hope inflation over 40 years is factored in, but I doubt it.I think benefits cheats should forfeit all future benefits, for ever.Sorry am I being a bit harsh?

Rupert Picken ● 5848d

No.

Rosco White ● 5848d

"Calculations show that this means that Mrs Neya will be 89 when she repays her debt in 2050. Mrs Saria should have repaid hers in 2021."So that's allright then .................................

Rosco White ● 5848d

"Would you consider Philip Green of cheating the taxpayer?He recently received a £300 million share dividend which was paid to his wife who resides in the tax haven of Monaco.He avoided paying  tax of over £100million with this little scam."Not at all.  It's not comparable unless Philip Green got the £300m from the government fraudulently.  High tax rates for the rich encourage only them to find ways around paying it and personally if I had to pay half (or more) of my earnings to the government, I'd do the same.

Sarah Harris ● 5847d

So you are of Leona Helmsley school of thinking only the little people taxes.He avoided paying tax of £100 million to the exchequer which he was liable to pay if it were not for it all being in his wife's name.If the little loopholes were plugged he could not get away with it. It only needs the same political zeal that governments pursue benefit fraudsters to do so.If he paid what was due it might help to reduce your tax bill.

Colin Carroll ● 5847d

You may not like it, but he's doing nothing illegal.Methinks everyone would exploit legal tax avoidance channels as much as Mr Green does should they be in his enviable position.Benefit fraudsters are, however, clearly illegal.  You can't compare the two, it's not logical Spock!

Rosco White ● 5847d

I think everyone should pay the same low percentage.  Isn't that the fairest way?  I don't agree that because you work hard and therefore earn more, you have to give more to the government.  Taxing the rich at a rate of 50% or higher only lends to them finding more ways around it, see Philip Green for details.  If I had to give half of what I earned to the government, I'd try to avoid it.  As it is, I'm a low earner so don't need to worry, but still think it's unfair.And I don't believe for a second that if the rich did pay up fully, that low earners tax would come down.  The Government would simply find other ways to waste it - we'd still be in the mess we're in.  Increasing rich people's tax didn't work in the 70s and it won't work now.

Sarah Harris ● 5847d

Illegal? It is questionable and it has been mentioned by certain governments, the US in particular have stated they would like to turn tax havens into pariah states.It is certainly immoral and easily solved.  So it is still OK not to pay your fair share just because you appear in the Sunday Times Rich List? So as a low earner you are quite happy to pay more in disproportionately more in taxes than the super rich?The figures once again £70 billion per year. But as long as you forelock tuggers think it is OK it will go begging.

Colin Carroll ● 5847d

I don't pay more in taxes than the super rich. The loopholes they're using don't only apply to the rich, they're there for all to benefit from, even if it's on a smaller scale.  It's all relative.Do you really think by turning tax havens into pariah states that will solve the problem?!  If only it were that simple...

Sarah Harris ● 5846d

I'll never understand how they STILL continue to receive benefits. There is no justice in the system whatsoever. I truly believe that if you are honest and hardworking, you are the fool in the eyes of these people, they are laughing at the honest folk as they know they can literally get away with it. They have no shame.

Miriam Kerketta ● 5846d

It's the same old that it's been for 15 to 20 years now - Political Correctness gone absolutely mad. Thanks Brussels.Hopefully the new era of austerity will kick "mad" PC into touch for good and the punishment will once again fit the crime.But don't hold your breath.

Rosco White ● 5846d

Well the proposal came from the US government and yes it might sort a few things out money laundering.Here's an interesting article by that former nice man Vince Cable:http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/23/tax-havens-g20Your views might change if you read it.Proportionately you probably do pay more in tax than the super rich. And no not all tax loopholes are available to everyone as they are complex and need to be managed by accountants and tax lawyers. The fees would probably eat into your salary.

Colin Carroll ● 5845d

Are you a ghost writer for Richard Littlejohn?Or are you doing the Knowledge?You forgot hangin's to good for'em and paedo scum.But not a bad effort.

Colin Carroll ● 5845d

I do understand what you're saying, but I think we should be blaming the Government rather than the rich.  People will play the system (both rich and poor - look at the heading of this thread) so it's up to the government to get the system right.Going back to this thread, the benefits system is a joke.  For example, when claiming jobseekers allowance you only have to prove you've looked for 3 jobs in two weeks because that's the number of spaces on the form.  If you need to claim unemployment insurance on credit cards, etc, you have to sign on and take the money even if you don't need it.  What a waste!  I have a friend who spends his dole money on cases of wine - he told the dole he just wanted them to sign the form and didn't need the money and they wouldn't allow it.  He had to take the money in order that they could then sign the form. Now tell me that makes any sense!

Sarah Harris ● 5845d

If the people you complain about are just simply unemployable by any criteria, what is your sensible solution for them after their benefits have been stopped?And what effect in your opinion, will such action have on the community - long term short term?

George Knox ● 5844d

I have always felt that "Workfare" is a very valid solution.You work for your welfare, as the Americans call it.So, on one, or maybe two days per week, depending on how much Benefit you receive, (and whether you are able bodied, have children to care for, etc - common sense to be applied) you pick up litter, paint railings, sweep streets, whatever. Just think how spick & span Britain could be overnight under such a system!

Rosco White ● 5844d

What evidence do you have that your suggestion does not put other people out of work?

George Knox ● 5841d

Just looking around and observing suggests to me that there is LOADS of improvements that could be done without the slightest danger whatsoever of anyone being put out of work.

Rosco White ● 5840d

I think you would have to do more than just look around. Galileo had to gather proper evidence before proposing the earth was not at the centre of the universe.How else do you think you will change the thinking of the establishment before they listen to you?

George Knox ● 5840d

There is now a report that a law student got a suspended sentence of 6 months for around £11-12Kof benefits fraud. Full details on Acton W3.Of course each case is different, but that ostensibly is quite a stiff punishment. Perhaps the courts are getting tougher?However it is reported that Ealing has had 18 successful prosecutions this year. How many fraud officers does the Council employ?

George Knox ● 5840d

Not sure that Galileo is the best example. He was forced to recant, and it took the Church over 300 years to accept that he was right.

Ian M Green ● 5840d

Wonder if she'll be leaving the country once she's finished her degree? Can/do the courts keep hold of foreign passports until fines have been paid?  If not they should.

Rupert Picken ● 5840d

6 months suspended is 'ostensibly is quite a stiff punishment'...yeah ,right.You must be joking!12k and they still haven't seen the inside of a prison,nice work if you can get it.

Keith Iddon ● 5840d

Ok Keith, but you would need to understand the guidance which magistrates have on the length of sentencing and when to imprison or not. Decades ago I think they had a secret rough rule of thumb menu to refer to. Always denied of course. What they do now is outside my ken.

George Knox ● 5839d

Ian, I think Galileo did quite well when you consider the rate at which the establishment and especially the DWP change their thinking.

George Knox ● 5839d