[Closed] Cameron is a twunt - part 26532...

Standard pandering to teh tabloids - as done by the last governemnt as well - only this time he is going to give the contract to experian thus privatising the data and also no doubt costing more than the benefit fraud dept we already have.

The really mad thing is that it costs a lot more than is recovered to go after benefit cheats but tax fraud costs less to recover than is recovered - but benefit fraud dept is increased but tax fraud decreased.

Nowt new here tho apart for the giving of the contract to experian.

Experian - now they do a scary job. Never mind government surveillance...

i must admit the first thing i thought was how much will it cost to hire these private agencies

just for grum:
[img] [/img]

😉

Someone more cynical than me would wonder if any senior tory MPs have directorships with Experian?

I wouldn't. I'm sure they're just striving for efficiency savings. Remember: We're all in this together

Cameron is behaving exactly as expected.

I'm sure tabloid readers would love to hear about tax cheats being caught out and made to pay.

It's the hair in between each pair of saggy, leaking dugs that really creeps me out about that...

Someone more cynical than me would wonder if any senior tory MPs have directorships with Experian?

binners, just for you, I have cynically checked the register of member's interests and there's no records of Experian for any MP. However that's not to say that there's isnt some kind of lobby slush fund directed at an MP on experian's behalf but that would be very hard to find. Hotwire appear to be PR agency for Experian though.

>Someone more cynical than me would wonder if any senior tory MPs have directorships with Experian?

"Experian said it already had a contract to scrutinise new housing benefit claimants, in a deal agreed by the previous government which had saved £17m. "

So, we should just leave benefit cheats to it then?

Not all benefit cheats are 'poor' either. By their very nature they're claiming benefits that they're not entitled to, their actual take home pay could well exceed yours or mine.

As for tax evasion, genuine tax evaders should always be pursued.

The trouble is, the sort of people who do it tend to have whip smart lawyers and accountants who know all of the loopholes. Whilst you could well argue that their conduct is morally wrong, very often it's within the realms of the law.

The trouble is, the sort of people who do it tend to have whip smart lawyers and accountants who know all of the loopholes. Whilst you could well argue that their conduct is morally wrong, very often it's within the realms of the law.

NO
Tax avoidance is within the law - tax evasion is always outside the law

NO
Tax avoidance is within the law - tax evasion is always outside the law

Right.

Pedantry aside, my point is that what many people consider to be tax evasion is actually tax avoidance.

ive got some mates who formed a company based in croatia exclusively for tax purposes its all legal apparently -they employ an expensive accountant and pay **** all tax, when challenged they say its their money coz tehy earned it
and all have way nicer cars, houses etc than me
but they are all IT nerds so i win?!?

Tax avoidance is for those with money to pay accountants, tax evasion is for everyone/anyone 🙂

kimbers, yup, I know an IT contractor who uses a similar setup.

Is it only me that wants benefits cheats caught and stopped, as Cameron said running up to the election when labour came into power there were 3 mil incapacity claimers, this year there are 11mil, we are not a more sick society, its just alot of these peeps haven't been assessed for over 5 years and so continue to claim as its far easier than working I cant wait til vit starts getting put into practice

Oh and to give you further flaming ammunition I strongly believe all benefits should be via a voucher system for basic needs to exist comfortably and not doled out loads of cash to spend on fags booze and plasma tellies

I'm with the hustler on this - the benefits and nanny state culture that has grown under years of Labour needs to stop.

Oh and to give you further flaming ammunition I strongly believe all benefits should be via a voucher system for basic needs to exist comfortably and not doled out loads of cash to spend on fags booze and plasma tellies

Being that I've just started back on benefits again, if I end up with another plasma telly in here I'll go ****in spare, I can't get moving for them. 😕

Here's a thought, if a benefit cheat has other income, maybe they could use that for luxuries and buy essentials with the WW2 ration book you're suggesting. Maybe further demoralising the unemployed doesn't have any real benefit other than to fuel your sense of superiority.

Is it only me that wants benefits cheats caught and stopped

No, but why is there such public outcry and government rhetoric over a relatively small issue - when tax evasion is a much bigger problem? Because it's an easy target and panders to your average Daily Mail reader's prejudices (many of whom probably see nothing wrong with fiddling their taxes).

the hustler - all I can suggest is that you try to live on the amount you get on benefits. Its miserable. It is by no means "loads of cash"

Benefit fraud should be dealt with as it already is.

All this is is
1) a cynical pandering to the tabloids ( whose poisonous lies you have bought) and
2) privatisation of a public service to drive down workers terms and conditions with little or no cash saving. ( as is normal with privatisations)

Shame that it was 20 years of Tory government that put them there with no hopes of ever working isn't it?

[img] [/img]

TJ - I do agree with you actually - the numbers don't suggest that it's loads of cash so it can't be a comfortable existance.

What I'll admit to having no answer to though and wondering if that makes me a Daily Mail reader by proxy is hearing from social workers that the poorest families typically smoke lots and almost all have big tvs and usually sky. How do they pay for them? Fraud (eg jobs while claiming) or...?

stoner - am I reading that right, that there was no disability benefit before 2002ish (or that it was just very very low?)?

Interesting to see though - basically benefit claimant numbers have been flat or even falling slightly (apart from disabled and jobseekers in the recession) for years...

The orange line is disability living allowance, and the red is incapacity. Incapacity is paid because you can't work. DLA is paid because you need assistance with your care (although it certainly used to be handed over in cash).

It is noticeable how stable the numbers are over 10 years...

Stoner - what are you trying to point out with that?

Oh and thanks for the lovely cartoon btw 😯

clubber - it's more disappointing than interesting. The figures being flat through 10 years of economic growth implies a very sticky proportion of the country are either long term unemployable or under no incentive to be in employment. There will, of course, be a proportion who are unable to work (for which DLA was designed) and protecting them is the imperative.

It also puts in perspective the relative impact of any changes in unemployement driven by the cuts program.

as Cameron said running up to the election when labour came into power there were 3 mil incapacity claimers, this year there are 11mi

So that would suggest this is completely wrong - what's the source of the graph, stoner?

I live in an area where some of the poorest families in Britain live side by side almost with those who live in some of the most expensive housing in Britain. I'm not going to go on and on about all the reasons for this, urban deprivation massive unemployment lack of investment in local people land grab poor educational opportunities, but it really can't be nice for someone struggling back from LiDLs after having worked bloody hard all week in a completely unrewarding and unfulfilling job, to see someone cruise past in an Aston Martin. And considering the example set by our wonderful scrupulous politicians, is it any wonder that people want to try to get a bit extra, using whatever means they think they can get away with? It's Human Nature to try to get a bit more. The very rich employ people to help them avoid paying tax, ffs.

It worries me that the ConDems are banging on about clamping down on benefits, legal aid, local services etc. I really don't think that will be a particularly positive or progressive move.

You forgot to blame Fatcha, Fred so I'll do it for you.

It's all Thatcher's fault.

graph is courtesy of Fraser Nelson, a right wing economics commentator and now editor of the Spectator. His politics can be a bit overly thatcherite but he does put effort into collating economic data from various government departments and the ONS who dont always want to present the data in such ways.

All the more interesting then. So where do the claims of 3->11m incapacity claimants come from/show up then?

clamping down on benefits, legal aid, local services

There's a respectable difference between trimming back people's entitlements and stopping them getting things they aren't entitled to. Are we actually going to say that claiming benefits you're not entitled to is laudable, or just understandable in the circumstances?

Presumably the best argument against it is the one raised earlier - that it isn't cost effective, and certainly not compared to putting the fear of god into people with millions stashed away in a Panamanian bank account held by a Panamanian company controlled by nominee directors and owned by nominee shareholders for a Panamanian unincorporated foundation with no registered existence and entirely secret beneficiaries operated wholly without written records by a Panamanian lawyer (which is perhaps the best way of ensuring that no-one knows you've got any money that still subsists in today's world).

11m is not a number I recognise anywhere. it might be the total of economically inactive? ❓

Presumably the best argument against it is the one raised earlier - that it isn't cost effective, and certainly not compared to putting the fear of god into people with millions stashed away in a Panamanian bank account helfd by a Panamanian company owned by nominee shareholders and controlled by nominee directors, itself owned by a Panamanian unincorporated foundation with no registered existence and entirely secret beneficiaries operated wholly without written records by a Panamanian lawyer

cheers for the free consultancy BD - that's my new enterprise holding structure sorted! 😉

[i]a very sticky proportion of the country are either long term unemployable or under no incentive to be in employment.[/i]

I suspect it may be cheaper in the long run than programmes to get 'some' back into work, given that they have probably no skills, live in areas of massive deprivation, with little prospects of long term stable employment.

This is a headline grabber "Look we are doing something"... I suspect the truth is that there's not a lot than can be safely cut, that hasn't already been looked at, as Stoner's graph seems to suggest

edit beaten again by the nimble 130wpm of a trained [s]monkey[/s] lawyer

BD, you said my secret was safe with you!!

I'm moving to Panama. BD told me to.

I think you'd actually cringe at the naked, howling dishonesty of "wealth management" solutions advocated by anyone associated with that canal-cleft land.

aP - Member

Shame that it was 20 years of Tory government that put them there with no hopes of ever working isn't it?

Ahh...so, chip firmly on shoulder and unable to face up to the fact that the Labour government was an utter disaster you've adopted the 'Sunset Beach' approach and are now pretending that the years 1997-2010 were just a dream sequence.

There's a respectable difference between trimming back people's entitlements and stopping them getting things they aren't entitled to.

Of course; the ConDems want to 're-assess' people in terms of their eligibility to receive benefits. IE, making the criteria for eligibility much more stringent, but I can't believe those criteria aren't already very strict indeed.

its just alot of these peeps haven't been assessed for over 5 years and so continue to claim as its far easier than working

I can't see how anyone can live on incapacity benefit - it's a good bit less than £100 p/w
besides, you're allowed to work when on it

bravohotel9er - Member

.......... unable to face up to the fact that the Labour government was an utter disaster you've adopted the 'Sunset Beach' approach and are now pretending that the years 1997-2010 were just a dream sequence.

The fact is of course that they actually were very successful in reducing unemployment, a bit of redistribution of wealth, massive reductions in crime, massive improvements in healthcare until derailed by a global crisis that was not their fault and that they mitigated very well.

Just wait until you see the soaring unemployment, decreasing prosperity and increasing crime now we have this bunch of clowns in charge who are going to deliberately push us back into recession to give them the excuse to destroy the public services

Why are people in the 3rd world/developing countries capable of surviving without benefits?

Confiscate all the properties of tax dodgers until they pay up. 😆