Dr. Dolescum

[¡Punk!]

You know, as I write this, I am kinda on benefits in two different countries and have also dodged tax in two different countries in the last few weeks. There are no things to be proud of nor are they anything to be ashamed of. The money that "scum" like me costs the government is the equivalent to having a pish in Loch Lomond. In fact it's worse than that because I go swimming in Loch Lomond sometimes and, deep down, I'm a very selfish man and don't want to swim in your pish.

So while we spend £1billion a year on the illegal war in Iraq, the "energy industry" goes out of it's way to take turns raising prices while you lot fork out for their over priced black oil AND the war which was started so we can get more of it. We have billionaires, millionaires and "British" companies that have so many offshore accounts and accountants scouring the world for loopholes in tax law so that even someone who's spent most their adult life watching...

Click here to read the entire review

[ladysavage]

how about tightening up the system so this sort of thing can't happen?

[Puppy]

then people who genuinely need the money quickly don't get it, and the system fails the very people its supposed to help.

[ladysavage]

unfortunately that's true, guess it's a situation that will never be solved satisfactorily for everyone

[endless psych]

Originally Posted by corky

I agree that the actions of this particular cunt, and possibly this type of fraud in general are negligible, but there is obviously a difference in stealing from hollywood and stealing from other citizens. It's like shoplifting from a supermarket instead of an independent buisness, bad analogy, point still stands.

The only difference is we have to pay taxes we don't choose to pay Hollywood. Both are funded by money paid by plebs like us.

Originally Posted by djtoast

I suppose the members of AltNation can get by without their individual fraction of a penny. But, to look at it another way, you've probably cost the state about - what - £20,000? (Could easily be double that, but let's use that number just fer talkin's sake).

Right the average amount per annum that a dole cheat costs the country is 3700 odd. Has Mick done this for five years? The "it could easily be double" would mean he's been doing it, going by the average, for ten years or thereabouts.

So what follows is fairly redundant. That and if the "denying other people money" doesn't hold water in real terms if it did then the blame lies solely at the door of the DWP. They know benefit fraud occurs, they know roughly how much occurs, if they don't budget for bogus as well as geniune claimants then something needs to change. Not advocating that they 'should' have to morally but practically they should as its a fraction of their overall budget anyway.

The simple fact is, society needs its government to have the resources to keep us safe, to help house, feed and clothe those who really aren't able to work, and so on. Taking money out of that pot needlessly is wrong, it does have real and detrimental effects, and as has been said above, pointing to other examples to try to dilute its effect is a woeful and pointless misdirection.

Arguably it forces taxes up but nowhere near as much as other government blunders and under taxing the rich (not to mention allowing loopholes that benefit them).

I would argue the reverse the media, by and large owned by big corporations who really don't want a tax hike or tightening up of tax laws, perpetuates the idea that benefit fraud is a huuge problem. When patently it isn't the vast overwhelming majority of benefit claimaints are genuine. Yet are still painted as workshy cheats and regarded with suspicion. Micks article doesn't help that granted, but the misdirection isn't pointing out there are bigger problems more worthy of attention. The midirection probably comes from getting people all het up about a pragmatically negligable issue and in turn largely ignoring others.

Doing it is one thing (to some extent that's understandable, selfishness and greed is rife and I suppose in a way natural), excusing it is quite another thing, which I honestly can't understand.

Selfishness and greed is natural? Systemic product more like. Also I wish to reiterate no-one is making excuses for this, people are however explaining the furore is perhaps undeserved (which maybe counterproductive to calming the discussion in the first place) and people are by and large being irrational about the whole thing.

Whether the semantics of the article encourages it or not, I think the tone does with its sorta gloating approach. Well whatever, that lifestyle isn't for me and it'd me unrealistic to think you can ever have a barrel of apples without some maggots i guess.

Mick says at the start:-

here are no things to be proud of nor are they anything to be ashamed of.

People really should question why they work.

Michty I feel like AWESOMEUS MAXIMUS now...

[djtoast]

Right the average amount per annum that a dole cheat costs the country is 3700 odd. Has Mick done this for five years? The "it could easily be double" would mean he's been doing it, going by the average, for ten years or thereabouts.

So what follows is fairly redundant.

um...

are you including housing benefit?

are you including the tax someone would pay if they were earning money rather than "claiming" it?

do your sums again.

[endless psych]

Originally Posted by djtoast

um...

are you including housing benefit?p

The figure is the average total that a benefit fraudsters makes (unsure if its mean or median or mode in fairness.) scamming the system.

are you including the tax someone would pay if they were earning money rather than "claiming" it?

do your sums again.

Most benefit fraud involves working "on the sly" so I assume thats factored into the figures I was using.

Besides it doesn't change the fact that given its such a small number of people its highly unlikely the DWP (or whichever dept. it turns out to be) don't have a contingency for these things. Which is the main argument why the idea that it denys others services is redundant. It might deny people services on the fringes of budgets and such indirectly, many, many more concerns will affect them before benefit fraud, but directly (As most emotive arguments tend to wish to imply) not on your nelly.

And, to labour the point to the edges of ridiculousness, in the grand scheme of things benefit fraud probably costs the country the same amount of money as something as frivolous as government depts. ordering too much stationary.

To reiterate yes its wrong. But to my mind no more wrong comparatively then someone stealing stationary from work. (Comparatively being the key word to apy heed to, even if I haven't spelt it correctly)

Originally Posted by djtoast

um...

are you including housing benefit?

are you including the tax someone would pay if they were earning money rather than "claiming" it?

do your sums again.

The council tax benefit alone would be £1200+ a year before looking at anything else.

And yeah, I agree that people should question their work ethic but lying and conniving to steal from society isn't really questioning anything, it's taking the easy route.

*edited to add*

From the jobcentreplus website:-

Weekly rates for JSA

* Person aged 16-17: £35.65
* Person aged 18-24: £46.85
* Person aged 25 or over: £59.15

I think Mick is still under 25, could be wrong. On that basis his JSA income would be £2436 per annum. That's only JSA, not including council tax rebate, housing benefit or any other state benefits.

[djtoast]

Besides it doesn't change the fact that given its such a small number of people its highly unlikely the DWP (or whichever dept. it turns out to be) don't have a contingency for these things. Which is the main argument why the idea that it denys others services is redundant. It might deny people services on the fringes of budgets and such indirectly, many, many more concerns will affect them before benefit fraud, but directly (As most emotive arguments tend to wish to imply) not on your nelly.

contingency? eh?

my point is that paying tax means the government has more money available; defrauding the state and its citizens means the government has less money available.

i'm not trying to name individual people that are are specifically being fucked over by mick stealing money; but saying that there is not a clear and direct line between how much money goes into the pot and how much is available for legitimate government expenditure is rot. which is more true:

"i'm stealing money from society but it's not much and other people do it too, so no harm is done."

"i'm stealing money from society; that same society that struggles to fund adequate intensive care units for premature babies; that has insufficient resources to help children from deprived areas achieve levels of literacy commensurate with their age; that allows pavements to fall into disrepair endagering the safety of our senior citizens (yes, those same elderly folks who themselves spent half a decade diligently working)..."

...?

is that unduly emotive? maybe, i don't think so, but i'm damn sure that even beyond doing that kinda thing, shrugging your shoulders about it makes it impossible to improve matters.

[endless psych]

Originally Posted by djtoast

Which is more true:

"i'm stealing money from society but it's not much and other people do it too, so no harm is done."

"i'm stealing money from society; that same society that struggles to fund adequate intensive care units for premature babies; that has insufficient resources to help children from deprived areas achieve levels of literacy commensurate with their age; that allows pavements to fall into disrepair endagering the safety of our senior citizens (yes, those same elderly folks who themselves spent half a decade diligently working)..."

...?

is that unduly emotive? maybe, i don't think so, but i'm damn sure that even beyond doing that kinda thing, shrugging your shoulders about it makes it impossible to improve matters.

See I am arguing almost the contrary I think its focusing unduly on this one issue that means matters will not be improved. Its a distraction from wider issues surrounding government expenditure and wastage, MP's expenses and loopholes that the rich can exploit in the tax system. Going on and on about how we are ruining it for ourselfs or others are ruining it for us is counterproductive and makes it nigh on impossible to even think about improving matters.

[djtoast]

i see what you mean; i don't think we should let larger scale inefficiency slide either obviously... but i would imagine it's harder to care about how your tax dollars are being wasted if you're not paying any.

[endless psych]

Probably so yes.

Although my main problem is that people will willingly spout off about benefits cheats and seemingly not care about the larger scale inifficiency and frauds going on every day that cost us more.

Rationally we shouldn't condone what Micks doing, it is wrong and illegal (as oppossed to just illegal) and can't be justified. But we shouldn't expend energy condemning it when there are bigger fish to fry.

[Posh]

Originally Posted by corky

I agree that the actions of this particular cunt, and possibly this type of fraud in general are negligible, but there is obviously a difference in stealing from hollywood and stealing from other citizens. It's like shoplifting from a supermarket instead of an independent buisness, bad analogy, point still stands.

It's not just a case of stealing from Hollywood or the record company or the shop or cinema that would have sold you the product, or even the people involved in making the media you're downloading, you're also not paying the tax on that item that you would have if you'd purchased it legally, meaning that money won't go back into the state and thus you are effectively stealing from, as you say, other citizens... No?

[Zippy]

Originally Posted by endless psych

But we shouldn't expend energy condemning it when there are bigger fish to fry.

The reason it's being condemned here is because Mick wrote an article on it. I can't see any articles by company fatcats on AN that need condemning at this moment.

[Witch]

Originally Posted by ladysavage

how about tightening up the system so this sort of thing can't happen?

Im afraid theres not really anyway to do this, staff are there to earn a wage, they dont care if you screw the system over (well the majority dont) A few are jobs worths and will make sure they screw you over till you die. Unfortunately the government departments dont talk to each other, due to a) sheer incompetence and b) red tape stopping them

[Dario]

This is disgusting. How dare Mick attempt to get around having to conform to the ultimately unsatisfying cycle of repetitive pointless drudgery! Isn't he aware of the vertigo-inducing altitude of the moral high ground that an average working schlub can occupy these days?

He certainly has a lot to learn from those benevolent taxpayers who go out of their way to contribute to society! Yes, that's right, they're not merely 'working in order to pay for goods and services', but in this context, contributing to society, as is the proper way to put it! It shows how much of a noble and heroic act getting up to go to work truly is, you see.
When those bills come in, our good citizens are filled with boundless pride and glee when they see that finally, their chance has come to, in the words of Michael Jackson, "heal the world". True, some may feel a slight tinge of dismay-- "If only they'd ask me for more money than this measly sum! Paying tax is what brings hope to the hearts of men!", they think to themselves.

Why, just the other day, that outstanding pillar of society, "The Beer Baron", was at the tax office, pleading with the man behind the desk to accept more cash from him.
"Please, please take my money!" he begged, "Take it, take it all! The children need their vaccines, dammit!!"
Alas, his pleas fell on deaf ears, and as he fell to the floor, releasing a painful, sorrowful wail, he commenced beating his fists into the ground out of sheer despair. All he could think of was that, somewhere, there were people who didn't care about vaccines-- people like Scrooge McMenemie-- sneaking around with their bags of swag, singing "You've Got to Pick a Pocket or Two" to themselves in mocking tones, and stealing all the money from the orphanage fund. For shame!

So one can imagine the horror felt upon returning home, to find this sad excuse for an article being paraded around, which not only condones attitudes that threaten the very stability of civilisation itself, but, adding insult to injury, has the audacity to be terribly arrogant and sanctimonious in the process--- which is sad, given how level-headed and productive the replies to it have been so far.
Hang your head in shame, Mick. You're a disgrace, man. A disgrace!