Register to Comment
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 46
  1. #21
    bob3344 bob3344 is offline
    bob3344's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    6,111

    Welfare fraud is estimated to cost about 2 billion a year.

    Hardly insignificant.

    That 22 billion nama figure that is trotted out about a zillion times a day whenever anyone suggests cutting anything could be offset significantly if we tackled fraud.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #22
    hammer hammer is offline
    hammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    42,933

    We should cut out ALL waste INCLUDING Anglo "investment", INBS "INVESTMENT", NAMA fees etc.........

    Some people have a bee in their bonnet about social welfare fraud. We have enough inspectors to clamp down on it.

    See the bigger picture
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #23
    Abacus Abacus is offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,218

    Reading through these responses to my OP (which was a bit of a kite really) I conclude that there is now an acceptable level of crime in the country and it's very evident here.
    Imagine the chances of picking a jury to try a SW fraud case from this lot. Having found him/her 'not guilty' they'd probably recommend double SW payment backdated to the commencement of proceedings.

    Methinks what-aboutery dominates our thinking now as never before and results in a softening of our attitudes.

    Would the measures suggested in the OP be acceptable at any level of SW fraud ?

    Suppose we had 50% or even higher fraud in that area, would that cause us to consider it or have we succumbed to compassion, forgiveness, sympathetic percipience or even turning a blind eye because after all the fat cats have already creamed it big time and nobody shouted 'STOP'. It's merely the turn of others now so to speak. Might these thoughts be influencing some responders ?

    These corpulent types, one may say, were aided and abetted by the authorities at every turn to enrich themselves without restraint so therefore it is not acceptable to go after the minnows who feed a little better these days on the crumbs or overflow that fall from the feeding trough known as the public purse ......is that the thinking in some quarters ?

    Have we actually reached that stage ?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #24
    bob3344 bob3344 is offline
    bob3344's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    6,111

    Quote Originally Posted by hammer View Post
    We should cut out ALL waste INCLUDING Anglo "investment", INBS "INVESTMENT", NAMA fees etc.........

    Some people have a bee in their bonnet about social welfare fraud. We have enough inspectors to clamp down on it.

    See the bigger picture
    No you see the bigger picture.

    This thread is about social welfare fraud which is costing 2 billion a year, but all we get is the usual nama.....blah, blah....star of david...discrimination against the unemployed...blah

    Tell you what, why don't we just do nothing at all on any topic, to express our disgust about nama.

    I remember a couple of years ago it was proposed that people on the dole (at the height of the boom) should sign on in person every week. Response - thats treating them like second class citizens, absolute disgrace, like jews in nazi germany etc etc. Eventually it happened & we saved something like 500m in six months.

    Introduce fingerprinting - whats the prob ? They have it in US immigration I believe.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #25
    darkhorse darkhorse is online now
    darkhorse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    9,765

    Quote Originally Posted by bob3344 View Post
    No you see the bigger picture.

    This thread is about social welfare fraud which is costing 2 billion a year, but all we get is the usual nama.....blah, blah....star of david...discrimination against the unemployed...blah

    Tell you what, why don't we just do nothing at all on any topic, to express our disgust about nama.

    I remember a couple of years ago it was proposed that people on the dole (at the height of the boom) should sign on in person every week. Response - thats treating them like second class citizens, absolute disgrace, like jews in nazi germany etc etc. Eventually it happened & we saved something like 500m in six months.

    Introduce fingerprinting - whats the prob ? They have it in US immigration I believe.
    Why should social welfare have to invent their own ID system - when a passport or driving license would be sufficient?
    The real issues are:
    a) non resident recipients - they should show up in person every week dont just give them a bank transfer. Many dont live here at all and the recent volcanic ash ban on flights resulted in a huge reduction in welfare recipients.
    b) the black market. If substantial penalties were on those who employ black labour then that market would be shut down forcing all employees to become legitimate.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #26
    exileinleinster exileinleinster is offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    581

    Quote Originally Posted by Abacus View Post
    There's much talk for a long time now about the extent of cost to the state of social welfare fraud. I see a workable way to practically wipe it out overnight.

    Make every Social Welfare Cheque recipient give his or her thumb-print when at the counter and on the point of receiving the check. Set up a simple straight forward means of doing this, in fact arrange it so the thumb-print is on the stub retained at the counter. This could be backed up and reinforced in terms of visual identity proof by linked in CCTV inclusive of date and time information and all recorded in non-tamper format.

    This would sort out the SW fraud industry practically overnight because when a SW cheque fraud is detected, all the proof needed for a criminal prosecution is right there in admissible form which is far more effective than sending the Guards after the will-o-wispish characters who bleed the system. Very hard to see why SW fraud wouldn't wither away if these measures were taken. So how about it ?
    Sadly the government have failed by not leading by example and now these people have little or no respect for the system or the law

    If say FF were to have a purge of the banks and the government, round up the architects of the countries economic decline, the destruction of it's future and peoples lives but prosecuting the people involved including some front benches..then they have a moral right.

    Sadly without this leadership we will have a society that will pretty much do what they want and take what they can. Sad,wrong but true.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #27
    bob3344 bob3344 is offline
    bob3344's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    6,111

    Quote Originally Posted by darkhorse View Post
    Why should social welfare have to invent their own ID system - when a passport or driving license would be sufficient?
    I think the advantage of biometric data over a passport or drivers license is that you can be 100% sure of who's standing in front of you, and that they're not signing onto the system twice under another name.

    Not sure whether the savings would warrant the investment in biometrics, but the yanks obviously feel it worthwhile & we wouldn't have to reinvent the wheel.

    We just have to get past the idea that its not worth bothering with or that its somehow a violation of someones human rights or whatever.

    And this idea that if you're caught defrauding, you get to pay back a fiver a week out of the dole you still get paid is beyond belief.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #28
    john moriarty john moriarty is offline
    john moriarty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    996

    I'm uncomfortable posting this at a
    time when we're letting so many of
    our 'captains of industry' off the hook
    and beggaring us all for decades to
    come. (Not that I've been able to do
    much taxpaying lately). But here it
    comes anyway.

    The so-called mickey money. How
    about stating that, say, 9 months
    (or so) from enactment, there will be
    no new welfare paid to unmarried
    claimants over and above what they'd
    normally receive as individuals?

    (This from someone unfamiliar with
    the sytem - as a self-employed person,
    I'm entitled to pretty much nothing).
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #29
    Cael Cael is offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    31,417

    Quote Originally Posted by Abacus View Post
    There's much talk for a long time now about the extent of cost to the state of social welfare fraud. I see a workable way to practically wipe it out overnight.
    How about eliminating the need for social welfare altogether by nationalising the land and means of production of the nation.

    What you are suggesting here is to penalise people for the fact that a tiny minority own the wealth of Ireland.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #30
    Cael Cael is offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    31,417

    Quote Originally Posted by bob3344 View Post
    Welfare fraud is estimated to cost about 2 billion a year.

    Hardly insignificant.
    Yes, that's the amount given every year in handouts to wealthy landowners, i.e. farmers.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment