but isn’t half of the problem that there a lot of pseudo-disabled claimants mixed in with the genuine ones that the system was originally set up to support?

If you spend your time reading the Daily Mail you’d think so wouldn’t you?

So, your (and CMD’s) solution to a few people managing to game the system is to demonise and make life miserable for all disabled people? At least that means no-one’s cheating the system eh?

Is it really possible to tighten the system without imposing new rules or tests when it’s so clear the current ones don’t work reliably?

Yes, I know, lets bring in a private company and put them on an incentive scheme where they get a bonus for every person they manage to kick off disability benefits. Can’t see any flaws in that plan.

EDIT: You may get you should stop reading the Daily Fail as well.

You really should though.

I think the normal response is that who cares about abit of benefit fraud when there is so much tax avoidance.

Given tax avoidance costs us massively, massively more, it would make sense to concentrate on that a bit more than benefit fraud, don’t you think?

Typical Tories attacking the poorest in society but leaving their mates happy – or some such drivel.

I’d really love you to try and explain which part of this statement isn’t true.

Well if you look at tax avoidance, the vast majority of firms that used to do it have given it up so I think that is indicative that the game for pre-packaged schemes is up. The capital gains trick that helped hedge fund managers and VCs is significantly reduced so, yes, it is much now incredibly difficult to do. My guess is that most schemes still marketed are bordering on evasion and those selling them will be locked up.

Who’s the villain? Well to be honest with you, I think it’s the bloke who decided that the top priority in his last budget was a tax cut for the very richest people in society. The ones untouched anyway by the recession. Some of them being the ones that caused it in the first place! And if that means disabled people are then confined to their houses as the local council can no longer afford to pay their carer, and they’ve had their disability living allowance withdrawn, well…. To quote his heroine …. That’s ‘a price worth paying’. Wouldn’t you agree?got to keep those wealth creators happy, haven’t we?

So, just out of interest… After you’ve served your time in the Tory press office, which would be your ideal safe, home counties seat to be parachuted into? I’m guessing Bozza’s old stomping ground. Is it Henley?

Grum – I find it bizarre that you condone benefit fraud yet you abhor tax avoidance.

Another one for you Grum – In your years in business, which I assume is on your own account, have you ever made a personal call on your mobile phone or work phone, and then submitted your bill without deducting that call from the bill? Or maybe sent personal emails from an email account you claim as a business expense and still claimed the full cost without a deduction… If so that’s tax evasion.

Just as a point of interest who, posting in this thread about the horrors of tax avoidance has an ISA, or a TESSA or any other tax efficient savings?

If you have please go to the mirror and shout “you tax avoiding scum” at your reflection, you tax avoiding scum!

I have none by the way, I’m skint!

What ever happened to the Big Society?

Eric Pickles ate it…

Gweilo, you’ll haver to help us out here: I have read grum’s posts a couple of times and I can’t see the bit where he condones benefit fraud anywhere.

I do think it is possible to see him suggesting that in these tight times, ‘cracking down’ on benefit fraud by contracting private companies with incentive schemes may be a rather less efficient use of public money than investing in robust pursuing of tax evasion and tightening laws allowing tax avoidance.

So Binners, I need your help again. This 50p tax thing. Why did Darling only introduce it right at the end of New Labour’s time in office? Surely he must have agreed that the rich should pay more tax and that raising the rate would raise more revenue. So why hesitate? Why leave it so late in his term and why argue that it should only be temporary?

So, just out of interest… After you’ve served your time in the Tory press office, which would be your ideal safe, home counties seat to be parachuted into? I’m guessing Bozza’s old stomping ground. Is it Henley?

If that was addressed to me, I am not even a member of any political party, let alone working for one.

I think if you look raising the tax threshold was the most expensive change rather than reducing the higher rate – which was revenue neutral – I am not sure I believe that but the cost was relatively small.

You can’t soak the rich that thesis was tested to destruction in the 70s and it did not work. The rich pay far more of the total tax take now than when the highest rate was 98%. So what is the alternative to reducing spending?

Thm – At a guess I’d say it was because Brown had realised that the game was up. That the no more boom and bust, ‘economic miracle’ was a mirage, and he was the emporer stood naked before the crowd! So, out of desperation, he thought he’d try and persuade the labour core vote that he was a socialist after all

Not that he fooled anyone, mind.

However … Cameron gave this tax break to the rich, after raising the rate of VAT – a tax that disproportionally impacts on the poor

Just shows where the priorities lie

Mefty – it wasn’t aimed at you, no

robdixon – Member
but isn’t half of the problem that there a lot of pseudo-disabled claimants mixed in with the genuine ones that the system was originally set up to support?

Less than one percent of DLA spending was lost to fraud. Almost double the amount lost to fraud was lost due to error.

40% of all refused ‘fit to work’ assessments that go to appeal are overturned, but ATOS doesn’t suffer a financial penalty for this.

So over 99% of DLA payments were correct.

I would also assume they did not want the right wing hounds of war released upon them. There is also the mandy quote about being comfortable with the very rich and I think it is safe to say Blair is and happy with tax avoidance.
I dont think the reason was because they thought it would not raise any money.
It was political at the end and left a quandary/trap for the Tories as to whether to keep or remove it as well- make them show their true colours so to speak.
Do you think the Tories wont or have never done the same?

julianwilson – Member
Gweilo, you’ll haver to help us out here: I have read grum’s posts a couple of times and I can’t see the bit where he condones benefit fraud anywhere.

Happy to help

grum – Member

So, your (and CMD’s) solution to a few people managing to game the system ….

Please note the use of the phrase “gaming the system” gaming is being used as an alternative for cheating or defrauding. My assertion is backed up by his later use of:

At least that means no-one’s cheating the system eh?

Note the word “cheating” directly replacing “gaming”

My interpretation of the post is that Grum believes “gaming the system” is acceptable. But we are now debating sentence structure and possible interpretations of something neither of us wrote.

I don’t disagree with the second part of your post, though I think we need to remember tax avoidance, including TESSAs, ISAs etc which are tax avoidance vehicles, is perfectly legal. Another contributor made the point about dodgy tax avoidance schemes eloquently earlier in the thread

My apologies Grum said “game the system” not “gaming” in which case game was being used in place of “cheat”

I stand by the rest of the post

This is brilliant:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/oct/10/atos-outsource-medical-assessments?fb=native&CMP=FBCNETTXT9038

ATOS, the company who have the contract for medical assessments for benefit claimants have outsourced a part of that contract to…the NHS!