|
Anidav posted:Centrelink threatens to charge interest on $900m worth of welfare debts It's cool that all the people fraudulently receiving tax-payer salaries for serving in government while ineligible had that waived but they're going to grind their heels on the necks of the poors on this
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2018 22:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 20:16 |
|
|
Nothing helps people be a productive member of society like crippling debt and a fraud conviction.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2018 22:19
|
|
|
I realise this is probably going to be an unpopular opinion as I'm typing it, but I feel like charging interest on cases like the one used in the example (over $800,000, including claims for children who didn't exist so very hard to argue they were just confused about how it all works) is fair enough. I mean yeah the gutting of Centrelink by the government is evil and hosed up, but that doesn't make welfare fraud okay, and Centrelink is hard enough to get without fuckers deliberately committing fraud and undermining the system. If it was a private individual who'd been scammed out of $800,000 I'd also support them getting money back with interest.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2018 22:41
|
|
|
yeah but knowing centrelink, they'll try to charge interest on every debt indiscriminately.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2018 22:52
|
|
|
Banks in Australia as bad as the Sideshow Bob campaign from the Simpsons.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2018 23:01
|
|
|
Whitlam posted:I realise this is probably going to be an unpopular opinion as I'm typing it, but I feel like charging interest on cases like the one used in the example (over $800,000, including claims for children who didn't exist so very hard to argue they were just confused about how it all works) is fair enough. I mean yeah the gutting of Centrelink by the government is evil and hosed up, but that doesn't make welfare fraud okay, and Centrelink is hard enough to get without fuckers deliberately committing fraud and undermining the system. If it was a private individual who'd been scammed out of $800,000 I'd also support them getting money back with interest. What about the electorate who got scammed out of those ineligible pollie salaries? Why does that get waived and this is ok?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2018 23:08
|
|
|
Dimebag posted:What about the electorate who got scammed out of those ineligible pollie salaries? Why does that get waived and this is ok? I never said that was okay.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2018 23:10
|
|
|
Huge cut to corporate tax "will boost wages" so that the government can accrue that missing revenue through introducing interest on welfare recipients' debt, which may or may not be intentionally "discovered" by a system that's almost certainly biased against the people it's meant to assist. Sounds reasonable to me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2018 23:23
|
|
|
Whitlam posted:I realise this is probably going to be an unpopular opinion as I'm typing it, but I feel like charging interest on cases like the one used in the example (over $800,000, including claims for children who didn't exist so very hard to argue they were just confused about how it all works) is fair enough. I mean yeah the gutting of Centrelink by the government is evil and hosed up, but that doesn't make welfare fraud okay, and Centrelink is hard enough to get without fuckers deliberately committing fraud and undermining the system. If it was a private individual who'd been scammed out of $800,000 I'd also support them getting money back with interest. I am extremely confident in saying that the relatively few cases of massive deliberate fraud have nothing to do with how hard it is to get Centrelink, similar to how the few cases of electoral fraud have nothing to do with some US states voter ID law. We have methods of pubishing people who deliberately defraud the government already. This wouldnt actually do anything to reduce the debt but will give massive hard one to people who fantasize about teaching poor people 'financial responsibility' and punishing poor people who, even accidentally, step out of line.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2018 23:24
|
|
|
Dimebag posted:What about the electorate who got scammed out of those ineligible pollie salaries? Why does that get waived and this is ok? They were going to have to pay that anyway, if the position was filled by another MP not found arbitrarily ineligible to sit. This is a dumb argument
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2018 23:25
|
|
|
Whitlam posted:I realise this is probably going to be an unpopular opinion as I'm typing it, but I feel like charging interest on cases like the one used in the example (over $800,000, including claims for children who didn't exist so very hard to argue they were just confused about how it all works) is fair enough. I mean yeah the gutting of Centrelink by the government is evil and hosed up, but that doesn't make welfare fraud okay, and Centrelink is hard enough to get without fuckers deliberately committing fraud and undermining the system. If it was a private individual who'd been scammed out of $800,000 I'd also support them getting money back with interest. If someone is in a position where they need to resort to welfare fraud (or even if they resort to it mistakenly), and they are discovered and required to pay back the money, how do you think charging them interest on that will discourage them from committing further crimes? Where are they going to get the money from to pay it back and also live in a home not on the street? bell jar fucked around with this message at 23:29 on Apr 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2018 23:26
|
|
|
It doesn't matter who else is stealing money at all to make fraudulent claims a generally bad thing that should be punished.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2018 23:28
|
|
|
AbortRetryFail posted:It doesn't matter who else is stealing money at all to make fraudulent claims a generally bad thing that should be punished. We give huge fines and send people to prison for it all the time. This is different from interest though, as it isn't automatic/ all entirely up to Scott Morrison.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2018 23:32
|
|
|
Gentleman Baller posted:I am extremely confident in saying that the relatively few cases of massive deliberate fraud have nothing to do with how hard it is to get Centrelink, similar to how the few cases of electoral fraud have nothing to do with some US states voter ID law. Extensive systematic fraud will result in a more stringent system of checks and balances, and it's already a bitch to try and get approved. It also pushes the public narrative of "welfare queens who just don't want to work" which is also bad. Apparently this will affect fewer than 200,000 people, who have a month to contact Centrelink to organise a repayment plan. Assuming this means an individually tailored plan and not, like, "pay us $6000 a month or it's off to debtors prison with you", that's not unreasonable to me. Government bad yes, deliberate welfare fraud also bad. Cases of legitimate accidental overpayments are different, but claiming over $800,000 including imaginary children? I'm going to go out on a limb and say they knew what they were doing, and I'm fine with people in that scenario having to pay it back and then some.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2018 23:35
|
|
|
bell jar posted:They were going to have to pay that anyway, if the position was filled by another MP not found arbitrarily ineligible to sit. This is a dumb argument Even if you accept that, we should still be pursuing costs incurred by the commonwealth as a result of their fraud, legal costs defending the case, administrative costs for putting in place an eligible member, costs of the New England by election, as well as any discretionary expenses they claimed for the entire time they were in parliament (flights, travel, reading material)
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2018 23:35
|
|
|
bell jar posted:If someone is in a position where they need to resort to welfare fraud (or even if they resort to it mistakenly), and they are discovered and required to pay back the money, how do you think charging them interest on that will discourage them from committing further crimes? Where are they going to get the money from to pay it back and also live in a home not on the street? In an ideal world, the interest collected would be reinvested into the Centrelink system. It's probably fair to assume this won't be happening here, though. As for how will it discourage future crimes, obviously you can't undo what has already been done, but it may deter other people, which I think is an acceptable outcome. As for where they'll get the money, depends. If the repayments are tailored individually, an amount could be worked out on individual incomes. If they're employed, it should be easy enough to figure out an amount, even if it was like $50 a fortnight. Yeah, you'll probably never collect The full amount, but whatever. The same argument could be applied to "but where will they find the money to repay the fines?" I don't think putative measures are necessarily de facto bad - if you kill someone who is objectively a terrible person and stain on humanity, you're still going to jail because we as a society have decided that's not okay. I realise "deterrence" as a punishment philosophy has mixed results, and if we get back data after having tried this that shows it doesn't work, I'll happily concede the point and accept we should try something else.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2018 23:52
|
|
|
Whitlam posted:Extensive systematic fraud will result in a more stringent system of checks and balances, and it's already a bitch to try and get approved. It also pushes the public narrative of "welfare queens who just don't want to work" which is also bad. Apparently this will affect fewer than 200,000 people, who have a month to contact Centrelink to organise a repayment plan. Assuming this means an individually tailored plan and not, like, "pay us $6000 a month or it's off to debtors prison with you", that's not unreasonable to me. Government bad yes, deliberate welfare fraud also bad. Why is it already a bitch to try and get approved? Do you honestly believe it is because the cases of deliberate fraud not being punished enough? If you do see that it isn't really about that, why is this case special? Why is this LNP plan of expanding their powers of punishment over Centrelink users, except this time with no oversight, why is this one so special as to make it worse if we don't give them more power? Whitlam posted:Cases of legitimate accidental overpayments are different, but claiming over $800,000 including imaginary children? I'm going to go out on a limb and say they knew what they were doing, and I'm fine with people in that scenario having to pay it back and then some. If the federal prosecutors agree that it was deliberate they already do have to, via fines and possibly imprisonment.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2018 23:55
|
|
|
Like this is so hosed. I don't know if you have ever both been poor and had maxed out credit cards or whatever but at 8.7% with numbers that could have accrued over a decade or more, that can be way more life ending than a prison sentence. I wonder if you are allowed to bankruptcy out of this one. Edit: you can't.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2018 23:59
|
|
|
Solemn Sloth posted:Even if you accept that, we should still be pursuing costs incurred by the commonwealth as a result of their fraud, legal costs defending the case, administrative costs for putting in place an eligible member, costs of the New England by election, as well as any discretionary expenses they claimed for the entire time they were in parliament (flights, travel, reading material) I accept this
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 00:05
|
|
|
The woman in the example is probably a bad cookie or whatever, assuming no mental illnesses etc, but I honestly don't know if it is possible to believe in both a rehabilitative, understanding justice system, while simultaneously believing that whoever is in the Dept.of Human Services at the time can decide that you will have to be perpetually bankrupt for the rest of your life or have debt collectors taking whatever they want for the rest of your life. (they can't collect only during your period of bankruptcy) I don't know what someone's income has to be to pay back 800,000 plus 8% interest, but I think it's pretty fair to say those are likely her two options. Gentleman Baller fucked around with this message at 00:16 on Apr 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 00:12
|
|
|
Whitlam posted:It also pushes the public narrative of "welfare queens who just don't want to work" which is also bad I feel like most of the people arguing this are doing so disingenuously, so there isn't much point trying to appease them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 00:13
|
|
|
Can anyone give me a good reason as to why I am still using a bank and not a credit union? I was waiting for the first bit of lovely news about my bank to get my arse into gear, but I'd like to know the downsides to a credit union. https://www.smh.com.au/business/absolutely-and-utterly-disgusting-westpac-victim-20180419-548w2.html Sorry for off topic
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 00:14
|
|
|
Whitlam posted:Extensive systematic fraud will result in a more stringent system of checks and balances, and it's already a bitch to try and get approved. This happens regardless of fraud (systemic, extensive, or no) because stringent checks and balances (checked and balanced heavily in the government's favour) is popular policy with punters who don't need to empathise with the poor. Conservatives will restrict access to welfare on principle. It could be the least abused system in the history of the world and it would still be cracked down on in the name of politics. Whitlam posted:It also pushes the public narrative of "welfare queens who just don't want to work" which is also bad. This is, has been, and always will be, dogwhistling. People shouldn't have to work to live (a lot of people can't) and if the system is badly made and can be defrauded by accident, these people should be lauded for exposing holes in the system which can be patched up. Actual fraudulent behaviour can and should be punished as normal, you don't need to set an example for people. Whitlam posted:Apparently this will affect fewer than 200,000 people, who have a month to contact Centrelink to organise a repayment plan. I thought this was a bitch to do? Whitlam posted:Assuming this means an individually tailored plan and not, like, "pay us $6000 a month or it's off to debtors prison with you", that's not unreasonable to me. Government bad yes, deliberate welfare fraud also bad.  Whitlam posted:Cases of legitimate accidental overpayments are different, but claiming over $800,000 including imaginary children? I'm going to go out on a limb and say they knew what they were doing, and I'm fine with people in that scenario having to pay it back and then some. This is already happening, no? Why extend this to people who are overpaid accidentally? Whitlam posted:In an ideal world, the interest collected would be reinvested into the Centrelink system. Attaching interest to welfare makes it a loan, not assistance. This is what  taxes are for.Whitlam posted:It's probably fair to assume this won't be happening here, though. As for how will it discourage future crimes, obviously you can't undo what has already been done, but it may deter other people, which I think is an acceptable outcome. How's mandatory minimum sentences and the death penalty working out for drug dealers and the like? Driving down crime? no, because penalties as deterrents don't loving work Whitlam posted:As for where they'll get the money, depends. If the repayments are tailored individually, an amount could be worked out on individual incomes. If they're employed, it should be easy enough to figure out an amount, even if it was like $50 a fortnight. Yeah, you'll probably never collect The full amount, but whatever. The same argument could be applied to "but where will they find the money to repay the fines?" If the government can't collect the whole debt, why increase the debt? This makes zero economic sense, and is purely punitive Whitlam posted:I don't think putative measures are necessarily de facto bad - if you kill someone who is objectively a terrible person and stain on humanity, you're still going to jail because we as a society have decided that's not okay. I realise "deterrence" as a punishment philosophy has mixed results, and if we get back data after having tried this that shows it doesn't work, I'll happily concede the point and accept we should try something else.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 00:17
|
|
|
A politician makes a claim about 800k debts and you're all taking that as fact? Uhh ok. I'd have thought if the solution was BS maybe most of the problem is too. On the back of 30 bad Newspolls, you don't think they'd stretch the truth a bit to satisfy the base like every other time they announce this kind of thing?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 00:37
|
|
|
ewe2 posted:A politician makes a claim about 800k debts and you're all taking that as fact? Uhh ok. I'd have thought if the solution was BS maybe most of the problem is too. On the back of 30 bad Newspolls, you don't think they'd stretch the truth a bit to satisfy the base like every other time they announce this kind of thing? This is fair, 800k is a ridiculous number. The only way I can think of someone defrauding the government to that extent is if they somehow managed to let Barnaby nut in 'em for 8 years.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 00:45
|
|
|
My hot take based entirely on cynicism and certainly not evidence is that it'll cost Centrelink more money to modify their system to account for interest and in checks to make sure it's being correctly applied than they'll ever recover.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 00:46
|
|
|
Knobb Manwich posted:My hot take based entirely on cynicism and certainly not evidence is that it'll cost Centrelink more money to modify their system to account for interest and in checks to make sure it's being correctly applied than they'll ever recover. Not that hot a take when you consider the state of Centrelink's IT system.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 00:51
|
|
|
I would blow Dane Cook posted:Not that hot a take when you consider the state of Centrelink's IT system. Just add it to the middleware, what could go wrong? Oh it crashed again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 01:20
|
|
|
Gentleman Baller posted:This is fair, 800k is a ridiculous number. The only way I can think of someone defrauding the government to that extent is if they somehow managed to let Barnaby nut in 'em for 8 years. Unless it's changed or I missed something big, full disability + the max of whatever the parenting payment is called comes out to <27k/year. You'd need to hide multiple fake kids for 30-odd years to get 800 grand. How do you even have a fake kid? I can sorta see how you'd do the paperwork and stuff, but what about school?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 01:42
|
|
|
A good friend of mine ended up 10k in debt to centrelink because she didn't qualify for payments as a student while only studying part time. It's totally on her for not realising she wasn't eligible, but it wasn't intentional. She's struggled like hell to repay this, since being a poor student and making gently caress all in casual wages this is a huge huge debt. These are the kind of people that interest would be loving not people who committed actual intentional fraud (for whom there is already a criminal justice system to handle).
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 01:46
|
|
|
Gentleman Baller posted:Why is it already a bitch to try and get approved? Do you honestly believe it is because the cases of deliberate fraud not being punished enough? In some cases, yes. I know people who've committed Centrelink fraud and none of them have ever been caught or fined. That's not to say it never happens, but I can say for a fact that it's not like every case ever is immediately identified. I don't resent people qualifying for and receiving Centrelink, despite never having been eligible for it myself and thinking the amount received should be raised, but I do resent people knowingly committing fraud. bell jar posted:This is, has been, and always will be, dogwhistling. People shouldn't have to work to live (a lot of people can't) and if the system is badly made and can be defrauded by accident, these people should be lauded for exposing holes in the system which can be patched up. Actual fraudulent behaviour can and should be punished as normal, you don't need to set an example for people. Regarding people having to work to live, that's a philosophical perspective, but I do accept that some people can't, for a number of reasons. Slightly off topic but personally I'm not sold on the concept of UBI, but that's a different matter. Here, I'm not talking about accidental fraud, I'm specifically talking about deliberate. bell jar posted:This is already happening, no? Why extend this to people who are overpaid accidentally? bell jar posted:Attaching interest to welfare makes it a loan, not assistance. This is what bell jar posted:How's mandatory minimum sentences and the death penalty working out for drug dealers and the like? Driving down crime? no, because penalties as deterrents don't loving work Likening repayment with interest for deliberate fraud isn't the same as mandatory minimum for sentencing is disingenuous, and the statement "penalties as deterrents don't work" is just stupid. It's literally part of the reason jail exists, and an important facet of judisprudence. If we legalised assault, there would be a lot more people getting punched. Deterrence is not and shouldn't be the only philosophy when it comes to determining sanctions for actions, but it is one, and it can have an effect. The key is that the deterrent must actually have an effect, and in my experience, people who are committing Centrelink fraud are doing so because they often don't get caught, and if they do, they know they can frustrate the process to the point where nothing happens. Yeah, maybe those people would still knowingly commit fraud anyway, but maybe some people who don't see it as a big deal will reconsider. edit: formatting
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 01:48
|
|
|
ok we get it, poor people are an abstraction for you, people breaking the rules makes you resent them, you've never lived hand to mouth or off welfare, thanks for your contribution to this discussion, please stop breathing
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 02:07
|
|
|
how impolite
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 02:12
|
|
My first car was a stick
|
How do we view shoplifters?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 02:21
|
|
|
I find it very hard to believe 170,000 people are all big fat welfare queens, particularly as many of them possess 'debt' from long in the past and have probably left the welfare system. Holding up that one 800k outlier does not magically prove the other 169,999 of them are dole bludgin' crims as well.
hiddenmovement fucked around with this message at 02:24 on Apr 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 02:22
|
|
|
bell jar posted:ok we get it, poor people are an abstraction for you, people breaking the rules makes you resent them, you've never lived hand to mouth or off welfare, thanks for your contribution to this discussion, please stop breathing Hm good point, opposing welfare fraud is bad and wrong, and the point where I said Centrelink amounts should be raised was clearly a ruse.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 02:23
|
|
|
fickle poofterist posted:Can anyone give me a good reason as to why I am still using a bank and not a credit union? I was waiting for the first bit of lovely news about my bank to get my arse into gear, but I'd like to know the downsides to a credit union. Same I was looking at Bank Australia - anyone here use them? They say nice things on the website but just wondering if its all for show or not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 02:28
|
|
|
Whitlam posted:Hm good point, opposing welfare fraud is bad and wrong, and the point where I said Centrelink amounts should be raised was clearly a ruse. Whitlam posted:I don't resent people qualifying for and receiving Centrelink, despite never having been eligible for it myself and thinking the amount received should be raised, but I do resent people knowingly committing fraud.  people not being able to function without income, income being solely derived from work, that's a philosophical perspective i've never been poor Whitlam posted:I know people who've committed Centrelink fraud and none of them have ever been caught or fined. That's not to say it never happens, but I can say for a fact that it's not like every case ever is immediately identified. ah yes, anecdotes are data, better punish poors based on it maybe deterring some people. i can't tell for sure whether it will work because the data's out on punitive measures, but happy to punish people because it feels right
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 02:47
|
|
|
god you're a piece of poo poo. how generous of you to want the welfare system raised, something which doesn't affect you at all. ohhh how can you say i hate poors, i want them to benefit slightly in one instance
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 02:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 20:16 |
|
|
Lid posted:How do we view shoplifters? if its to fill a need, good on you. if its to make a profit, shame shame
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 02:49
|
|