Author Topic: Woman on benefits convicted of fraud for saving, not spending, benefits  (Read 6081 times)

Eurotexan

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 194
  • Location: Dallas
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/dedicated-mum-who-saved-50000-15873958?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=wales_main

Interesting and frankly outrageous story. Mother on benefits for diasabled son is found guilty of fraud for saving not spending her benefits. Technically the fraud comes from her not declaring her savings which would have reduced or even eliminated future benefits.

I am having a really hard time with this decision. If she had spent the money at the pub, on lottery tickets, new cell phones etc  she would have been fine and would have continued to receive the benefits. It seems the benefit was a set amount and she was frugal and, I’m sure, sacrificed a lot of current spending for the future well being of her son.

As a society we don’t just encourage spending, it seems we actually penalize savings. She has to pay back over half of her savings or she will go to jail for six months. What a messed up society we live in.

scottish

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2716
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Woman on benefits convicted of fraud for saving, not spending, benefits
« Reply #1 on: February 23, 2019, 08:34:36 AM »
So the point of view is what, exactly?    She didn't follow the rules and she got caught.    That money could have been used to support some other disabled kid.

Seadog

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 268
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Halifax, NS
Re: Woman on benefits convicted of fraud for saving, not spending, benefits
« Reply #2 on: February 23, 2019, 09:19:19 AM »
Well the rules are stupid then. But alas, those are the rules, and how you need to play ball. I can however sympathize.

There was a huge discussion a while back, specifically in reference to US health care I think and other perks like food stamps and others which ran the gamut, and whether it was right for frugal, FIREd people with huge savings, but low on paper income to take advantage of them.

My opinion was a resounding yes, and this further solidifies my point. I got burned to the tune of $8k years ago because after a series of 4 month contract co-op terms through uni, I had the hours to qualify for a certain amount of unemployment benefits after I graduated. I decided that after 5 years of school, I wanted to take time off to travel, so delayed applying for them so I could do "the honest thing" not claiming them while I wasn't working and not looking, and then presumably once I started looking in earnest 8 months later, I could get my due. Big mistake. It was use it or lose it, and consequently I got nothing. Had I looked in earnest first for 4 months (or even just said I was..), *then* travelled if nothing came up, I would have been $8k ahead.

Here's the thing. The gov't is a giant soulless beast. It doesn't particularly care about 'fair' or 'right' or whatever. There are simply too many people, and too many cases to look at each one on a case by case basis, so they need to make up rules to help speed things along.

Particularly for unique cases like a student who graduates in the black and want to take time off to travel, or someone on public assistance who is actually doing the prudent thing by saving money.

When it's in the gov'ts benefit to screw you because the rules say otherwise, they don't give two hoots about 'fair', as this case clearly demonstrates. I currently can support a decent life style almost indefinitely thanks to the magic of FIRE, consequently, certain benefits are curtailed. If however, I take out ads and have a million dollar crack party Tyrone Biggumss style, I would then be eligible for heaps.

The gov't and people with guns started this game, so I will happily comply with their rules. To that end I will also do everything in my power to get whatever is due with zero sympathy, just as they will when the shoe is on the other foot. 

ExitViaTheCashRamp

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 280
Re: Woman on benefits convicted of fraud for saving, not spending, benefits
« Reply #3 on: February 23, 2019, 09:24:47 AM »
The UK government has been moving this direction for a really long time, it isn't really news.

 High income ? No in-work benefits for you.
 Good income ? Then we will taper your benefits by 50p in the £1 after £x income
 Good income and high savings ? The we will taper your earnings from your earnings and savings.
 No income, but savings over £6,000, then we will assume you can get 8% interest on that and reduce your benefits accordingly.

 This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who has taken from the UK benefits system. The idea is that you shouldn't be using state hand outs to get rich, they should provide a safety net - not a way of life.

 Huge arguments on their implementation are always ongoing with many caught up with taper or no benefits at all that hurt.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2019, 09:27:42 AM by ExitViaTheCashRamp »

HipGnosis

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1824
Re: Woman on benefits convicted of fraud for saving, not spending, benefits
« Reply #4 on: February 23, 2019, 09:47:29 AM »
B!S!!  The topic subject is a flat out lie for attention.
The mom was NOT "convicted for saving".
Her benefits were partially reclaimed because she didn't report her savings.

Eurotexan

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 194
  • Location: Dallas
Re: Woman on benefits convicted of fraud for saving, not spending, benefits
« Reply #5 on: February 23, 2019, 09:57:21 AM »
I understand she was convicted for not reporting the savings, I highlight that in my post. I just fail to see how people are penalized for how they spend their benefits. I, like most people on this forum I imagine, am against those who claim benefits in lieu of working, but this case hit me because she was (at least it appears to me) saving for her child’s future. There isn’t enough detail in the article to know but surely this is a good thing as if something happens to her as the government would have to step in to support her son in the form of an expensive care home.

Yes, it is one size fits all and you can’t have different rules for every scenario. I feel it. Just another shitty example of screwing those who plan for the future as opposed to pissing all the money away on a Friday night.

scottish

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2716
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Woman on benefits convicted of fraud for saving, not spending, benefits
« Reply #6 on: February 23, 2019, 11:28:14 AM »
But she wasn't penalized for how she spent benefits.    She didn't need them all, so she saved them.   Then instead of reporting her savings (i.e. that she didn't need all the benefits) she continued to collect them anyway.

You're right, it's not fair that someone else could have spent the excess at the pub.    Indeed, someone else could have spent *all* the benefits at the pub instead of for the kid.    I don't see how you can build rules that control how the money is spent though.


seattlecyclone

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7254
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Seattle, WA
    • My blog
Re: Woman on benefits convicted of fraud for saving, not spending, benefits
« Reply #7 on: February 23, 2019, 11:35:00 AM »
The US has a lot of benefits with rather small asset limits as well. It's based on the idea that someone who has a solid emergency fund doesn't need government assistance, at least not yet, so we want them to spend it down before we give them a penny.

The downside is that once you're on the benefits, there is a massive disincentive to start saving. Instead you find it's in your best interest to spend every last penny on a new cell phone or fancy shoes or whatever so that they don't take away your benefits going forward. This system is a great way to get people trapped in poverty forever.

I don't know what the perfect system is, but there's got to be some sort of hybrid of a purely income-based system (ripe for abuse from low-income millionaires like us) and one that requires you to be penniless to get anything.

Paul der Krake

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5854
  • Age: 16
  • Location: UTC-10:00
Re: Woman on benefits convicted of fraud for saving, not spending, benefits
« Reply #8 on: February 23, 2019, 12:07:46 PM »
Right, the way you avoid that disincentive is by making the benefits rather spartan, so that nobody with a choice is tempted to remain on them. This can be done by restricting the monetary amount (e.g. no more than $100 per person per month), or by restricting choice (e.g. you get only buy 50 types of food). In either case, the program will be accused of paternalism and will not help people as much as it could, because not all recipients are astute consumers.

It's a damn near impossible balance to strike.

AlexMar

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 262
Re: Woman on benefits convicted of fraud for saving, not spending, benefits
« Reply #9 on: February 23, 2019, 07:00:40 PM »
I don't find it outrageous at all. If she is saving money then she clearly doesn't need the money. It's for basic needs.  It more than provided for her basic needs.  She kept the excess and saved it, then purposely didn't report it so she could continue taking more money than she needed.  Which is damaging to the system.

Another way to look at it. MMM is all about living smaller, protecting the environment and not using more than you need. As a Mustachian, you shouldn't be taking this ladies side. She took more than she needed, from other people. She abused a system designed to help her, at the detriment of others. Now THAT is outrageous.

Seadog

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 268
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Halifax, NS
Re: Woman on benefits convicted of fraud for saving, not spending, benefits
« Reply #10 on: February 23, 2019, 11:03:48 PM »
Another story came up here a few years ago. Some poor lady was profiled in the paper about getting benefits, and people were up in arms that she had a Canada Goose, $1000 parka in her pic. "If she can afford that, why does she need benefits?!" Then she calmly explained that she was working before, and used that money to buy the coat. So over some months she worked for a bit, made $1000 to buy a coat, saved nothing, and then got $1000 from the public so she could eat. People pointed out that essentially the public bought her a luxury coat, because had she not, she could hvae easily paid her own way. But again, that's how the system is set up. Better than scratch tickets maybe? Well I don't know, at least then a lot of the money would go back to the gov't.

For instance: 2 people make $250k over 10 years. How much tax should each pay, and what benefits should each get? The same? Seems reasonable to me. But, despite two people with identical long term incomes, you could literally have someone paying half their money in tax (if all earned in one year) then receiving no benefit as they responsibly make 125k last 10 years. The other works seasonally fishing, makes 25k/yr in 4 months, pays very little tax, spends it on hookers and blow, gets unemployment for 4 months, then welfare and food stamps for the next 4.

You can survive on $500 a month. $250 for a room, possible shared. $150 for food. No cell. No internet. No cable. No car. We're talking staving off death here. However, people would be up in arms if you expected them to live like that. Though I and many people here have done it, and immigrants by the bushel. Why can't these people?

One major premise of mustachianism is to delay gratification. But you sacrifice in the present, for the whole purpose of enjoying tomorrow. Then people see the fruits of your earlier sacrifice and demand you give them some. It's like that fable about the chicken who asks everyone to help her harvest grain, mill wheat, knead bread, then bake it, and they all refuse. Until they smell it cooking and then want in. She points out that they were no where to be found when work was to be done, so you're not welcome to enjoy the rewards. If the gov't were in that story. They would simply take the entire loaf and give it to others and tell her clearly she did it once on her own with no help, so it's within her ability to do it again.

Punishing savers. Be it this, rock bottoming interest rates when retarded over extended people bought homes they couldn't afford etc etc. But why should we expect the gov't to act differently than 98% of the populous who voted them in?

I think part of the problem is too that many people here are above average intelligence. They can disassemble and reassemble many moving parts to look at things from a bunch of perspectives (like the 10 yr income example above), whereas the rest of the public don't look or think beyond their nose. Splurge in boom months, windfalls are to be wasted! And think there's nothing wrong with the govt doing the same.

To that end though, I stand by my original point. You won't beat the gov't. Appeals to fairness or justness will be ignored. Play by the rules. But take what you can and give nothing back. Do you think Apple cares about fair? They literally pay teams of lawyers $100s of ks to do exactly this.

/cynical rant over.

scottish

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2716
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Woman on benefits convicted of fraud for saving, not spending, benefits
« Reply #11 on: February 24, 2019, 07:29:01 AM »
Aye, but you don't need to be vengeful about it laddie.

This is just the way of most people.    The remainder of us can make our own decisions.    We can act like these people we mock and take advantage of the system at every opportunity.    Or we can go our own way...

partgypsy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5207
Re: Woman on benefits convicted of fraud for saving, not spending, benefits
« Reply #12 on: February 24, 2019, 08:29:44 AM »
I just think it's short sighted to not allow people some level of savings to qualify for benefits. It means there is no way they can dig themselves out of the hole and at some point not need to be on benefits. So while it seems like it makes sense -yeah, they should have NOTHING to qualify for benefits, it means if you follow the rules trying to become self-sufficient is disincentivized or even penalized. I think in contrary they should incentivize behaviors like having a savings account for people needing to be on benefits.

the_fixer

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1252
  • Location: Colorado
  • mind on my money money on my mind
Re: Woman on benefits convicted of fraud for saving, not spending, benefits
« Reply #13 on: February 24, 2019, 11:02:50 AM »
I see a business opportunity :)

 setup a business that charges excessive prices for goods / services and provides a rebate that can be cashed out at a later time or refunds via gift cards.



Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


Seadog

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 268
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Halifax, NS
Re: Woman on benefits convicted of fraud for saving, not spending, benefits
« Reply #14 on: February 24, 2019, 03:33:29 PM »
I see a business opportunity :)

 setup a business that charges excessive prices for goods / services and provides a rebate that can be cashed out at a later time or refunds via gift cards.



Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

You think the market hasn't already figured this out? There is an entire market around food stamps/benefits cards, and I witnessed it first hand in Texas. Why? Because although the gov't has given these people money to buy necessities, they would much rather use the money for drugs and stereos. Sadly, these cards have lamentable restrictions attached, along the lines of "no drugs". So they sell them to crafty people with cash.  Apparently 50-60 cents on the dollar is the going rate.

https://mastermyfinance.com/selling-food-stamps-cash-learn-instead/

AlexMar

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 262
Re: Woman on benefits convicted of fraud for saving, not spending, benefits
« Reply #15 on: February 24, 2019, 03:43:48 PM »
I just think it's short sighted to not allow people some level of savings to qualify for benefits. It means there is no way they can dig themselves out of the hole and at some point not need to be on benefits. So while it seems like it makes sense -yeah, they should have NOTHING to qualify for benefits, it means if you follow the rules trying to become self-sufficient is disincentivized or even penalized. I think in contrary they should incentivize behaviors like having a savings account for people needing to be on benefits.

I couldn't disagree more.  Having more money than you need from benefits won't dig you out of any hole or incentivize you to do anything but living nicely on the benefits.  Benefits should NOT provide more than basic needs, thus providing an incentive to actually work hard for more.  If this lady is saving extra money, then she isn't even in a hole to begin with, let alone one she needs to climb out of.  Your entire premise is flawed.  Really, if you receiving so much in benefits that you are saving money, then what is your motivation to get off the benefits?  And it doesn't discourage savings, it discourages excessive savings.  It's not meant to be a lifetime basic income on the backs of others labor.  It's supposed to be a helping hand.  She abused it.  Right. To. Jail.  As deserved.

Seadog

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 268
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Halifax, NS
Re: Woman on benefits convicted of fraud for saving, not spending, benefits
« Reply #16 on: February 24, 2019, 04:34:37 PM »
I just think it's short sighted to not allow people some level of savings to qualify for benefits. It means there is no way they can dig themselves out of the hole and at some point not need to be on benefits. So while it seems like it makes sense -yeah, they should have NOTHING to qualify for benefits, it means if you follow the rules trying to become self-sufficient is disincentivized or even penalized. I think in contrary they should incentivize behaviors like having a savings account for people needing to be on benefits.

I couldn't disagree more.  Having more money than you need from benefits won't dig you out of any hole or incentivize you to do anything but living nicely on the benefits.  Benefits should NOT provide more than basic needs, thus providing an incentive to actually work hard for more.  If this lady is saving extra money, then she isn't even in a hole to begin with, let alone one she needs to climb out of.  Your entire premise is flawed.  Really, if you receiving so much in benefits that you are saving money, then what is your motivation to get off the benefits?  And it doesn't discourage savings, it discourages excessive savings.  It's not meant to be a lifetime basic income on the backs of others labor.  It's supposed to be a helping hand.  She abused it.  Right. To. Jail.  As deserved.

Needs? What are needs. Gruel and water and a bed in a drafty bunk house alongside 99 others. It worked for Oliver Twist in the 1800s, has physiology changed so much that it no longer does? No matter how you slice it, people on benefits are getting little extras here and there over and above the afore mentioned. The odd drink. The odd better cut of meat, the odd scratchy. Why are those extravagances fine, but the one of 'the odd bit of savings in case something comes up' not? She has more than she "needs", but look at every single persons spending and you can't come to any conclusion other than they too also have things beyond their "needs" too.

AlexMar

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 262
Re: Woman on benefits convicted of fraud for saving, not spending, benefits
« Reply #17 on: February 24, 2019, 05:37:14 PM »
I just think it's short sighted to not allow people some level of savings to qualify for benefits. It means there is no way they can dig themselves out of the hole and at some point not need to be on benefits. So while it seems like it makes sense -yeah, they should have NOTHING to qualify for benefits, it means if you follow the rules trying to become self-sufficient is disincentivized or even penalized. I think in contrary they should incentivize behaviors like having a savings account for people needing to be on benefits.

I couldn't disagree more.  Having more money than you need from benefits won't dig you out of any hole or incentivize you to do anything but living nicely on the benefits.  Benefits should NOT provide more than basic needs, thus providing an incentive to actually work hard for more.  If this lady is saving extra money, then she isn't even in a hole to begin with, let alone one she needs to climb out of.  Your entire premise is flawed.  Really, if you receiving so much in benefits that you are saving money, then what is your motivation to get off the benefits?  And it doesn't discourage savings, it discourages excessive savings.  It's not meant to be a lifetime basic income on the backs of others labor.  It's supposed to be a helping hand.  She abused it.  Right. To. Jail.  As deserved.

Needs? What are needs. Gruel and water and a bed in a drafty bunk house alongside 99 others. It worked for Oliver Twist in the 1800s, has physiology changed so much that it no longer does? No matter how you slice it, people on benefits are getting little extras here and there over and above the afore mentioned. The odd drink. The odd better cut of meat, the odd scratchy. Why are those extravagances fine, but the one of 'the odd bit of savings in case something comes up' not? She has more than she "needs", but look at every single persons spending and you can't come to any conclusion other than they too also have things beyond their "needs" too.

If she is saving money, then she is receiving more money than SHE needs.  Just because there isn't a reasonable alternative to stop frivolous spending, doesn't mean what she is doing is right all of a sudden.  I am actually a big proponent of food boxes instead of food stamps and a similar approach to most of welfare, as able and reasonable to do.  But it's just so much easier to cut people a check based on expected expenses.  And then put in an asset limit.  If people have more assets than said limits, then they obviously don't need the funds.  It's not a FIRE retirement plan to go frugal on welfare and build up your stache.  That's ridiculous. If she is saving so much of her welfare that she is exceeding the asset limits, then clearly SHE doesn't need those funds.  She should take less, so as others who are in need can benefit.

I tend to take the MMM point of view with debt/credit cards.  It's an emergency, eat beans and rice.  If you are on welfare, eat beans and rice, figure shit out.  It's an emergency.  Do better.  So no, you aren't going to convince me they need the odd drink and better cut of meat on welfare.  Sorry.  Go get a damn job.  (I feel differently about the truly disabled, to make that clear).
« Last Edit: February 24, 2019, 05:38:54 PM by AlexMar »

partgypsy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5207
Re: Woman on benefits convicted of fraud for saving, not spending, benefits
« Reply #18 on: February 25, 2019, 02:41:14 PM »
Wow, I see a lot of contempt for those on public assistance. I do hope people realize that the government pays a fraction of its spending on things like food stamps, compared to what it spends say on Department of Defense. It is a regular occurrence they mislay or can't find during an audit millions of dollars. Yet some woman saves money on public assistance should go to jail. Maybe we should just bring back the poorhouses and jailing people for debts. Food boxes sound like a good idea but they do not work for people with particular dietary needs or allergies. buying groceries for other people because you don't think they are responsible enough to pick out their own food sounds like the worst definition of a nanny state.

eta I have no idea of this person's particular circumstance, so I can admit maybe she WAS gaming the system, or at the least diverting funds that were for the son. Or maybe she was being thrifty and creative with money that we all advocate on this forum.

I do know ridiculous things like, my Mom, my sister, and my brother all lived together at one point. My mother made 15K working 20+ hours a week as a teacher at a community college. My sister made even less, less than 1K a month. (i'm not going to go into details with her situation). My brother has made nothing for decades (lives off my Mom). But because the household made more than 25K a year, they were not eligible for food stamps. even though half of my mother's income goes to paying her property taxes (7K a year). So, I sent my mom some info about local food banks. Where they lived it was only open either 1 day or 2 days a month, and there was a line when it opened. My mother waited, feeling humiliated, and by the time she got to the door they had run out of boxes. The man was apologetic. She was walking back to her car feeling ashamed, angry at herself and humiliated, and someone run up and gave her a bag of some random food, and she thanked them.

She sold her house and at 75 is finally retired, renting and living off the proceeds of her house. She gets 550 a month social security. It is just her and my brother so a household of 2 with an income of not even 12K a year, and she the household is still not eligible for assistance. You guessed it, too much in the bank. So when she gets older she will simply have to spend all her money and be ward of the state. 

And in case you wonder, both my mother and my brother are in too poor of health to work, so "just get a job" response doesn't work in their case.
 
« Last Edit: February 25, 2019, 02:47:37 PM by partgypsy »

mm1970

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10881
Re: Woman on benefits convicted of fraud for saving, not spending, benefits
« Reply #19 on: February 25, 2019, 05:41:19 PM »
I see a business opportunity :)

 setup a business that charges excessive prices for goods / services and provides a rebate that can be cashed out at a later time or refunds via gift cards.



Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

You think the market hasn't already figured this out? There is an entire market around food stamps/benefits cards, and I witnessed it first hand in Texas. Why? Because although the gov't has given these people money to buy necessities, they would much rather use the money for drugs and stereos. Sadly, these cards have lamentable restrictions attached, along the lines of "no drugs". So they sell them to crafty people with cash.  Apparently 50-60 cents on the dollar is the going rate.

https://mastermyfinance.com/selling-food-stamps-cash-learn-instead/
It's not just drugs and stereos.  For some people, food stamps are literally all the "money" they get.

You can't pay rent, the heating bill, buy clothing or tampons with food stamps.

So you sell the food stamps to buy tampons.

mm1970

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10881
Re: Woman on benefits convicted of fraud for saving, not spending, benefits
« Reply #20 on: February 25, 2019, 05:50:56 PM »
I just think it's short sighted to not allow people some level of savings to qualify for benefits. It means there is no way they can dig themselves out of the hole and at some point not need to be on benefits. So while it seems like it makes sense -yeah, they should have NOTHING to qualify for benefits, it means if you follow the rules trying to become self-sufficient is disincentivized or even penalized. I think in contrary they should incentivize behaviors like having a savings account for people needing to be on benefits.

I couldn't disagree more.  Having more money than you need from benefits won't dig you out of any hole or incentivize you to do anything but living nicely on the benefits.  Benefits should NOT provide more than basic needs, thus providing an incentive to actually work hard for more.  If this lady is saving extra money, then she isn't even in a hole to begin with, let alone one she needs to climb out of.  Your entire premise is flawed.  Really, if you receiving so much in benefits that you are saving money, then what is your motivation to get off the benefits?  And it doesn't discourage savings, it discourages excessive savings.  It's not meant to be a lifetime basic income on the backs of others labor.  It's supposed to be a helping hand.  She abused it.  Right. To. Jail.  As deserved.

Needs? What are needs. Gruel and water and a bed in a drafty bunk house alongside 99 others. It worked for Oliver Twist in the 1800s, has physiology changed so much that it no longer does? No matter how you slice it, people on benefits are getting little extras here and there over and above the afore mentioned. The odd drink. The odd better cut of meat, the odd scratchy. Why are those extravagances fine, but the one of 'the odd bit of savings in case something comes up' not? She has more than she "needs", but look at every single persons spending and you can't come to any conclusion other than they too also have things beyond their "needs" too.

If she is saving money, then she is receiving more money than SHE needs.  Just because there isn't a reasonable alternative to stop frivolous spending, doesn't mean what she is doing is right all of a sudden. I am actually a big proponent of food boxes instead of food stamps and a similar approach to most of welfare, as able and reasonable to do.  But it's just so much easier to cut people a check based on expected expenses.  And then put in an asset limit.  If people have more assets than said limits, then they obviously don't need the funds.  It's not a FIRE retirement plan to go frugal on welfare and build up your stache.  That's ridiculous. If she is saving so much of her welfare that she is exceeding the asset limits, then clearly SHE doesn't need those funds.  She should take less, so as others who are in need can benefit.

I tend to take the MMM point of view with debt/credit cards.  It's an emergency, eat beans and rice.  If you are on welfare, eat beans and rice, figure shit out.  It's an emergency.  Do better.  So no, you aren't going to convince me they need the odd drink and better cut of meat on welfare.  Sorry.  Go get a damn job.  (I feel differently about the truly disabled, to make that clear).
why does this not surprise me at all?  Hate for poor people to actually be allowed to have self respect and all that.  You know, choose their own food.  Can't have the poors living like the regular folk!

Not just commenting on the original link, but why is the assumption always that people are lazy?  I mean, some people are just never going to function (fetal alcohol syndrome, born addicted to drugs, brain damage, physical disabilities, down syndrome).  Some parents have to take care of disabled children forever.  And then their other children, or the state, have to take over.  I can't see why being a complete shithead to them and denying/ limiting benefits does any good whatsoever.  I mean, why?

So, if you've got a wide variety of spending habits...it's okay for Mom A to live in a nicer flat, buy nice food and a car, spend on clothing, etc., and save nothing.  So she'll be living on whatever benefits her disabled child gets...forever.  But it's NOT okay for a more frugal Mom, Mom B (who is perhaps worried about what is going to happen to her kid when she kicks the bucket), so patch clothing, eat more beans and rice, and save some of the money.

Yes, the system pretty much sucks.  I don't see a way out of it - it's too hard to police anyway.  I fall on the more European side of just not wanting anyone to suffer.

Paul der Krake

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5854
  • Age: 16
  • Location: UTC-10:00
Re: Woman on benefits convicted of fraud for saving, not spending, benefits
« Reply #21 on: February 25, 2019, 08:49:47 PM »
Yes, the system pretty much sucks.  I don't see a way out of it - it's too hard to police anyway.  I fall on the more European side of just not wanting anyone to suffer.
Americans have a very rosy vision of what European-style welfare looks like, like everybody there gets a living wage according to their abilities...  I can guarantee you there are wretched living conditions there too.

In the UK the maximum amount of money you can get from the government as a single mother is about $450 a week. In France the closest thing to welfare for a mother with two kids is about $1100 a month. The systems are different but it's all within spitting distance of what the poor get in the US. The brutal truth is that life sucks for the bottom 20% or so pretty much everywhere.

Imma

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3193
  • Location: Europe
Re: Woman on benefits convicted of fraud for saving, not spending, benefits
« Reply #22 on: February 26, 2019, 04:12:33 AM »
Yes, the system pretty much sucks.  I don't see a way out of it - it's too hard to police anyway.  I fall on the more European side of just not wanting anyone to suffer.
Americans have a very rosy vision of what European-style welfare looks like, like everybody there gets a living wage according to their abilities...  I can guarantee you there are wretched living conditions there too.

In the UK the maximum amount of money you can get from the government as a single mother is about $450 a week. In France the closest thing to welfare for a mother with two kids is about $1100 a month. The systems are different but it's all within spitting distance of what the poor get in the US. The brutal truth is that life sucks for the bottom 20% or so pretty much everywhere.

I worked in the benefits system in the NL and it's pretty much similar here. A single parent gets less than €1000 although there are some additional funds a family may or may not qualify for.

I do believe people should be allowed to keep some savings. My local council used to send a lot of people to classes in budgeting, which was a great idea, but then they're not supposed to put the knowledge into practice: for example, when people had a €1000 emergency fund they'd suddenly not qualify for not having to pay local taxes anymore (which is €200-300). In the long run, sensible budgeting would cost them money. What didn't help is that every type of fund available has their own set of rules and only a small group of people know all the rules to game the system. Most other people make small mistakes and every time they do so, they can expect fines to be withheld from their benefits (plus this way without an emergency fund they will likely not be able to make rent).

What we saw a lot is that people had 0 hours contracts, worked a lot of shifts for a few months, were able to get out of benefits, then were back as soon as they got a few less shifts at work. It seems to me that with a little bit more money in an EF they'd not have to get back on benefits so soon. I'm not saying it's impossible to get out of  poverty but it is difficult.  I think when your income starts to increase from say, €15000 you don't really start to notice yourself getting more wealthy until you make around €30.000. Until that point, for every €1000 your income increases, you're just hit with a few more bills that you didn't have to pay before.

GetItRight

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 627
Re: Woman on benefits convicted of fraud for saving, not spending, benefits
« Reply #23 on: February 26, 2019, 05:03:08 AM »
Ah, the welfare state. You must be totally dependent upon it, submit entirely to it and do not attempt to be reasonable or help yourself within the constraints of the welfare state or it will force you to submit, obey, and be totally dependent once again. We live in the society forced upon us, by all means take everything you can get, starve the beast, but play by the rules or you'll see the only tool in their box of tricks. The welfare state subsidized frivolous spending, demands frivolous spending from those dependent on it. This is by design, it is part of the bread and circus.

AlexMar

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 262
Re: Woman on benefits convicted of fraud for saving, not spending, benefits
« Reply #24 on: February 26, 2019, 08:14:08 AM »
I just think it's short sighted to not allow people some level of savings to qualify for benefits. It means there is no way they can dig themselves out of the hole and at some point not need to be on benefits. So while it seems like it makes sense -yeah, they should have NOTHING to qualify for benefits, it means if you follow the rules trying to become self-sufficient is disincentivized or even penalized. I think in contrary they should incentivize behaviors like having a savings account for people needing to be on benefits.

I couldn't disagree more.  Having more money than you need from benefits won't dig you out of any hole or incentivize you to do anything but living nicely on the benefits.  Benefits should NOT provide more than basic needs, thus providing an incentive to actually work hard for more.  If this lady is saving extra money, then she isn't even in a hole to begin with, let alone one she needs to climb out of.  Your entire premise is flawed.  Really, if you receiving so much in benefits that you are saving money, then what is your motivation to get off the benefits?  And it doesn't discourage savings, it discourages excessive savings.  It's not meant to be a lifetime basic income on the backs of others labor.  It's supposed to be a helping hand.  She abused it.  Right. To. Jail.  As deserved.

Needs? What are needs. Gruel and water and a bed in a drafty bunk house alongside 99 others. It worked for Oliver Twist in the 1800s, has physiology changed so much that it no longer does? No matter how you slice it, people on benefits are getting little extras here and there over and above the afore mentioned. The odd drink. The odd better cut of meat, the odd scratchy. Why are those extravagances fine, but the one of 'the odd bit of savings in case something comes up' not? She has more than she "needs", but look at every single persons spending and you can't come to any conclusion other than they too also have things beyond their "needs" too.

If she is saving money, then she is receiving more money than SHE needs.  Just because there isn't a reasonable alternative to stop frivolous spending, doesn't mean what she is doing is right all of a sudden. I am actually a big proponent of food boxes instead of food stamps and a similar approach to most of welfare, as able and reasonable to do.  But it's just so much easier to cut people a check based on expected expenses.  And then put in an asset limit.  If people have more assets than said limits, then they obviously don't need the funds.  It's not a FIRE retirement plan to go frugal on welfare and build up your stache.  That's ridiculous. If she is saving so much of her welfare that she is exceeding the asset limits, then clearly SHE doesn't need those funds.  She should take less, so as others who are in need can benefit.

I tend to take the MMM point of view with debt/credit cards.  It's an emergency, eat beans and rice.  If you are on welfare, eat beans and rice, figure shit out.  It's an emergency.  Do better.  So no, you aren't going to convince me they need the odd drink and better cut of meat on welfare.  Sorry.  Go get a damn job.  (I feel differently about the truly disabled, to make that clear).
why does this not surprise me at all?  Hate for poor people to actually be allowed to have self respect and all that.  You know, choose their own food.  Can't have the poors living like the regular folk!

Not just commenting on the original link, but why is the assumption always that people are lazy?  I mean, some people are just never going to function (fetal alcohol syndrome, born addicted to drugs, brain damage, physical disabilities, down syndrome).  Some parents have to take care of disabled children forever.  And then their other children, or the state, have to take over.  I can't see why being a complete shithead to them and denying/ limiting benefits does any good whatsoever.  I mean, why?

So, if you've got a wide variety of spending habits...it's okay for Mom A to live in a nicer flat, buy nice food and a car, spend on clothing, etc., and save nothing.  So she'll be living on whatever benefits her disabled child gets...forever.  But it's NOT okay for a more frugal Mom, Mom B (who is perhaps worried about what is going to happen to her kid when she kicks the bucket), so patch clothing, eat more beans and rice, and save some of the money.

Yes, the system pretty much sucks.  I don't see a way out of it - it's too hard to police anyway.  I fall on the more European side of just not wanting anyone to suffer.

Gosh, it's almost like you didn't read my entire comment before penning this diatribe.  Give it another shot.

snacky

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10871
  • Location: Hoth
  • Forum Dignitary
Re: Woman on benefits convicted of fraud for saving, not spending, benefits
« Reply #25 on: February 26, 2019, 08:46:34 AM »
You guys need to try having a little compassion. I know a lot of people on benefits, and none of them are living large or happy to be on the dole. Society is not kind to those who don't participate in the capitalist economy, whatever their reasons.

My friend lives near Baltimore with her profoundly disabled child. The kid needs 24/7 care. Feeding tubes, diapering, all of that. My friend can't work, obviously. The state tried to cut off her benefits to give her the 'dignity of working'. The worker suggested that she put her kid in foster care so she could work again.
Foster care would cost a lot more than my friend's disgustingly meager benefits. This isn't about saving taxpayer dollars, it's about an ideological stance that is unhumane.
(my friend appealed this decision and had it overturned.)

mm1970

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10881
Re: Woman on benefits convicted of fraud for saving, not spending, benefits
« Reply #26 on: February 26, 2019, 10:50:49 AM »
Yes, the system pretty much sucks.  I don't see a way out of it - it's too hard to police anyway.  I fall on the more European side of just not wanting anyone to suffer.
Americans have a very rosy vision of what European-style welfare looks like, like everybody there gets a living wage according to their abilities...  I can guarantee you there are wretched living conditions there too.

In the UK the maximum amount of money you can get from the government as a single mother is about $450 a week. In France the closest thing to welfare for a mother with two kids is about $1100 a month. The systems are different but it's all within spitting distance of what the poor get in the US. The brutal truth is that life sucks for the bottom 20% or so pretty much everywhere.
I don't have a rosy picture about the results of the European welfare states (noting they are different).  More the rosy picture about my own personal European friends (in various countries), who personally feel like it is compassionate and dignified to have things like national healthcare and help when you need it.

Where Americans would just rather say "fuck you".

AlexMar

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 262
Re: Woman on benefits convicted of fraud for saving, not spending, benefits
« Reply #27 on: February 26, 2019, 11:42:17 AM »
You guys need to try having a little compassion. I know a lot of people on benefits, and none of them are living large or happy to be on the dole. Society is not kind to those who don't participate in the capitalist economy, whatever their reasons.

My friend lives near Baltimore with her profoundly disabled child. The kid needs 24/7 care. Feeding tubes, diapering, all of that. My friend can't work, obviously. The state tried to cut off her benefits to give her the 'dignity of working'. The worker suggested that she put her kid in foster care so she could work again.
Foster care would cost a lot more than my friend's disgustingly meager benefits. This isn't about saving taxpayer dollars, it's about an ideological stance that is unhumane.
(my friend appealed this decision and had it overturned.)

This is just more thinking in extremes, which is everything that is wrong with this country (maybe the world) right now.  Just because someone thinks it's reasonable to try and aggressively push people to work and not live on benefits (and even build a savings/slush fund) then apparently, that person thinks disabled children should suffer.  That's ridiculous.  Nobody is saying that.  Stop going to the extremes.

AlexMar

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 262
Re: Woman on benefits convicted of fraud for saving, not spending, benefits
« Reply #28 on: February 26, 2019, 11:47:23 AM »
Yes, the system pretty much sucks.  I don't see a way out of it - it's too hard to police anyway.  I fall on the more European side of just not wanting anyone to suffer.
Americans have a very rosy vision of what European-style welfare looks like, like everybody there gets a living wage according to their abilities...  I can guarantee you there are wretched living conditions there too.

In the UK the maximum amount of money you can get from the government as a single mother is about $450 a week. In France the closest thing to welfare for a mother with two kids is about $1100 a month. The systems are different but it's all within spitting distance of what the poor get in the US. The brutal truth is that life sucks for the bottom 20% or so pretty much everywhere.
I don't have a rosy picture about the results of the European welfare states (noting they are different).  More the rosy picture about my own personal European friends (in various countries), who personally feel like it is compassionate and dignified to have things like national healthcare and help when you need it.

Where Americans would just rather say "fuck you".

Depends on the country.  I can tell you my nordic friends are annoyed with the amount of welfare benefits people get.  They aren't all thrilled with it, support it, or even like it.  You are right about healthcare though, they definitely believe in basics like that and don't love the American system at all.  But when they visit us, they also make comments about how the American healthcare isn't near as bad as their media makes it to be.  They expected people dying in the streets, basically.  And he ones that live here all say the same thing, that our healthcare is pretty good and if you have it through your job, you end up way ahead than in Norway, since you get it basically free through your job here and much lower taxes.  So the conversation turns more towards providing for the poor.  There is no question that healthcare in the US is better, it's a matter of access for EVERYONE and they believe it's worth giving up some of their benefits here for others to be "brought up" and have better care.

But the welfare gets way out of hand, for example, you can do really well in Denmark and never work.

Here's a great NY Times article about it:  https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/world/europe/danes-rethink-a-welfare-state-ample-to-a-fault.html
« Last Edit: February 26, 2019, 11:49:02 AM by AlexMar »

Paul der Krake

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5854
  • Age: 16
  • Location: UTC-10:00
Re: Woman on benefits convicted of fraud for saving, not spending, benefits
« Reply #29 on: February 26, 2019, 11:57:14 AM »
Yes, the system pretty much sucks.  I don't see a way out of it - it's too hard to police anyway.  I fall on the more European side of just not wanting anyone to suffer.
Americans have a very rosy vision of what European-style welfare looks like, like everybody there gets a living wage according to their abilities...  I can guarantee you there are wretched living conditions there too.

In the UK the maximum amount of money you can get from the government as a single mother is about $450 a week. In France the closest thing to welfare for a mother with two kids is about $1100 a month. The systems are different but it's all within spitting distance of what the poor get in the US. The brutal truth is that life sucks for the bottom 20% or so pretty much everywhere.
I don't have a rosy picture about the results of the European welfare states (noting they are different).  More the rosy picture about my own personal European friends (in various countries), who personally feel like it is compassionate and dignified to have things like national healthcare and help when you need it.

Where Americans would just rather say "fuck you".
Ah, I understand what you mean now.

I think it speaks more to the polarization than anything else. Basically, there is a disconnect between what politicians say and what policies actually are, once implemented. In the US, it's politically popular to shit on the poor for about 50% of the country, but in practice nobody is taking away the benefits. The government objectively spends a shit ton of money on social programs. You get some high profile controversies every now and then (drug testing! planned parenthood subsidies!), by design, but the core benefits are not going anywhere.

On the flip side, European politicians have to cater to a much more centrist population, where shitting on the poor gets you nowhere. So they talk a great deal about compassion, but the amount of benefits actually received don't match the grand vision laid out in speeches and programs.

Simply said: there's a weak correlation between public discourse and hard dollar amounts being doled out to the needy.

AlexMar

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 262
Re: Woman on benefits convicted of fraud for saving, not spending, benefits
« Reply #30 on: February 26, 2019, 12:01:00 PM »
In the US, it's politically popular to shit on the poor for about 50% of the country

Complete bullshit.  Nobody thinks it's good to shit on the poor.  Comments like this are just divisive nonsense derived from the OTHER half of the country.

Paul der Krake

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5854
  • Age: 16
  • Location: UTC-10:00
Re: Woman on benefits convicted of fraud for saving, not spending, benefits
« Reply #31 on: February 26, 2019, 12:06:43 PM »
In the US, it's politically popular to shit on the poor for about 50% of the country

Complete bullshit.  Nobody thinks it's good to shit on the poor.  Comments like this are just divisive nonsense derived from the OTHER half of the country.
Give me a thousand complete strangers and I can make money all day by guessing which party they vote for, simply by asking them whether they think the government spends too much on social programs.

You're going to have a variety of views in every party, but this one as clear cut as it gets.

Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2171
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: Woman on benefits convicted of fraud for saving, not spending, benefits
« Reply #32 on: February 26, 2019, 12:06:55 PM »
In the US, it's politically popular to shit on the poor for about 50% of the country

Complete bullshit.  Nobody thinks it's good to shit on the poor.  Comments like this are just divisive nonsense derived from the OTHER half of the country.

LOL. People LOVE shitting on the poor, and laud their politicians when they do it. I live in Trump country, where people don't exactly live in fear of sharing their appallingly callous opinions because they just assume that everyone around them shares them.

mm1970

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10881
Re: Woman on benefits convicted of fraud for saving, not spending, benefits
« Reply #33 on: February 26, 2019, 01:04:41 PM »
In the US, it's politically popular to shit on the poor for about 50% of the country

Complete bullshit.  Nobody thinks it's good to shit on the poor.  Comments like this are just divisive nonsense derived from the OTHER half of the country.
You must have a different opinion of what "shitting on the poor" means, or live in a different area than I do.

I'm going to go with different opinion.  If I had a nickel for every complaint about "lazy people on welfare, stupid people and their food stamps" etc., I'd be richer than I am now.  For sure.

mm1970

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10881
Re: Woman on benefits convicted of fraud for saving, not spending, benefits
« Reply #34 on: February 26, 2019, 01:11:39 PM »
I'll be sure to ask all my Danish friends and family this summer, when they are visiting.  Most of them (in prior conversations) have been pretty happy about the current status of the country.  But much like the US (and our looming Social Security issues, not to mention underfunded public pensions), they will likely have to make some adjustments.

In other news: sliding scales are hard yo.  (aka, how do you encourage people to work to make their lives better? when in many cases, working makes their lives worse.  The answer can't, and shouldn't be "then starve".)

CheezM

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 19
Re: Woman on benefits convicted of fraud for saving, not spending, benefits
« Reply #35 on: February 26, 2019, 05:08:27 PM »
In the US, it's politically popular to shit on the poor for about 50% of the country

Complete bullshit.  Nobody thinks it's good to shit on the poor.  Comments like this are just divisive nonsense derived from the OTHER half of the country.
Give me a thousand complete strangers and I can make money all day by guessing which party they vote for, simply by asking them whether they think the government spends too much on social programs.

You're going to have a variety of views in every party, but this one as clear cut as it gets.

There is still a large contingent of the Democratic party that is fairly conservative by todays standards.  It might surprise you.  Union/working class people who are about as far from the "San Francisco" type liberal as you can get.  My dad is a good example.  You would think he's a Republican in many respects, but he's a big Democrat supporter.  He's would tell you the government spends too much on social programs and then finish the sentence with a rant about how if we had more unions, we wouldn't need all of the social programs.

CheezM

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 19
Re: Woman on benefits convicted of fraud for saving, not spending, benefits
« Reply #36 on: February 26, 2019, 05:11:46 PM »
I'll be sure to ask all my Danish friends and family this summer, when they are visiting.  Most of them (in prior conversations) have been pretty happy about the current status of the country.  But much like the US (and our looming Social Security issues, not to mention underfunded public pensions), they will likely have to make some adjustments.

In other news: sliding scales are hard yo.  (aka, how do you encourage people to work to make their lives better? when in many cases, working makes their lives worse.  The answer can't, and shouldn't be "then starve".)

Which area of Denmark are your Danish friends from?  Jutland and Zealand can be worlds apart.  Like Southerners compared to Yankees.  Different accents, different political views.  The mock each other.  The country folk tend to be much more conservative, city slickers more liberal.  People seem to be people no matter where you go.  No different than the US, really.

 

Wow, a phone plan for fifteen bucks!