How to cut Benefit Fraud...
... in one easy step - make the benefits system far simpler. Cull the number of benefits people can claim without necessarily drastically cutting the amounts people receive. Make the whole system less complex and more transparent and guess what? It will be easier to spot fraud. And, also on the plus side, it will require fewer people to manage the system, meaning you can save money there as well.
The same for tax - you want to reduce tax evasion? Make the tax system simpler. You want to make it really easy? Introduce a single, flat tax rate. Guess what? It will also be easier to administer, so you'll require fewer people to do so, meaning you save money.
I know what you're thinking - this isn't rocket science. In fact, to most people, it should be blindingly fucking obvious. Then you hear about Cameron's proposal to offer a bounty to companies who help then find benefit cheats. Oh, do fuck off David. Make your system simpler. Make the massive bureaucracy fit for purpose. If you're not going to fundamentally change the nature of government in this country - and from all the available signs, Davey boy isn't - then at least make it a little bit less inefficient. Or at least make it a little bit less easy to commit fraud than through slipping through one of the numerous glaring gaps in the system.
Labels: Benefits, Cameron, Con-Dem, Death Tax, Fraud, Welfare State
posted by The Nameless Libertarian @ 8:10 pm
7 Comments
7 Comments:
Also, with a flat tax system, lots of dodgy accountants and tax loophole specialists will have to go to work to a proper, reputable job for once in their lives. That alone is a reason for a flat tax.
The Jaunt
Agreed.
TNL
Reduce means-testing to a minimum for reasons that I cannot be arsed to articulate as I had a big dinner & we all know already.
As many benefits as possible should be universal, it may be silly that well-off old cunts still get a pension but there's a lot worse in this world than silliness, such as the state going out of its way to encourage people to do the wrong thing, which is all that means testing is.
They were also right to scale back these maternity grants & means testing child benefit is an especially fucking woeful idea which has hopefully been stamped upon.
I don't especially like the idea of state child support at all as I think having babies is a CHOICE which should only be made by those whoare certain they will be able to provide financially, emotionally, & in terms of putting in the work with reading etc. etc. But it exists, & should be universal because the last thing we want is for people to be worried about accepting a pay rise in case they lose their benefits.
In terms of support to children & pensioners, the means test has been malignant. I would be in favour of raising the basic state pension & reducing pension credit, even if this made some people worse off that would on aggregate be made up for by the encouragement for those who can to save for their own retirement, whereas now & even more so in the recent past it has been a case of discouraging them from doing anything for themselves.
At the time when the income tax threshold was raised (an excellent policy for which I think we have Clegg to thank) cunts objected that it wouldn't benefit the poorest because the poorest don't have jobs. But if it makes it worth their while to work then it fucking does. This is what cunts don't appreciate, that the government doesn't have to be wiping people's arses for it to have a good effect, sometimes it can do less.
I do not support any more state support to "private sector" fuckers whose aim it is to push unemployed & otherwise poor people around. In my view it is a mistake to give taxpayers' money to all these "private sector" fuckers, which the last government did, but so did its Tory predecessors.
A mate of mine has never had a job & is often sent on waste of time courses. I'd rather pay for his benefits than for the sort of twat who is employed on these make-work schemes & trousers £20-30,000 a year for doing nothing of any worth.
I don't vilify people on benfits if they are just people who haven't got jobs, or are disabled. They only become reprehensible if the go on to have kids that they have no means of supporting, & will grow up without a half-decent upbringing.
PS- I know this is long but I got pissed off in the course of writing so I randomly went on.
Agreed.
1. One flat tax (preferably on land values, not incomes, but a correspondingly lower flat tax on each will do, apart from that, the flatness is just as important than the lowness) and
2. Universal benefits (at whatever £ level, that is a secondary issue, whereby £0 is an option worth considering), for the reasons that Asquith outlines so comprehensively.
Asquith,
I know this is long but I got pissed off in the course of writing so I randomly went on.
That feeling is precisely why I started this blog in the first place, so you'll never get me complaining about anything anyone writes on this blog on those grounds.
TNL
Outstanding post and great reply from asquith.
OF course, you 'libertarians' with your vexatious hatred of the Tory party are willfully unaware that your proposals to simplify the benefit system are EXACTLY what Iain Duncan-Smith is proposing.
True, this proposal is silly but it's a stop-gap until a more radical proposal can be put in place.
There's still a lot of Labour's shit to be cleaned up and it all takes time!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home