|
Whitlam posted:I've tried to be civil and respond to your points, but you can't do the same because you're behaving like you're actually rabid. tone police arrest this man he talks in mad
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 04:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 05:48 |
|
|
Hmm why don't we punish welfare frauds more, in a way that punishes people trying to do the right thing. If that's controversial to you I don't know what to say
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 05:00
|
|
|
Whitlam posted:Do not lecture me on what it's like to be disadvantaged when you don't know anything about me or my situation. I literally work with the homeless as part of my job, getting people into housing.  don't lecture me about disadvantage, my best friends are poor
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 05:01
|
|
|
Nice meltdown.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 05:04
|
|
|
bell jar posted:A question: The answer to both is yes. The criminal justice system is a cost, but we choose to implement it as a public good anyway. The department should in no way have the power to punish though. If they think someone has been overpaid they should be able to notify the person, if they think the person was fraudulent then they should forward it to the independent police service like anyone else.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 05:06
|
|
|
KennyTheFish posted:The answer to both is yes. The criminal justice system is a cost, but we choose to implement it as a public good anyway. I think this is a good take. I wish we had an independent policing service - maybe something to add to my rabid leftist agenda
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 05:11
|
|
|
Whitlam posted:Her, and I'm willing to accept it may be a generational/situational thing but the perspective and mentality is that it's no big deal, the system is broken so why shouldn't I get as much as I can, all my friends are doing it and they've never been caught so why shouldn't I? I mean sure they're not fraudulently claiming hundreds of thousands a year so they're probably not high on the priority list and won't be caught unless they're randomly audited, but if your argument is the system is perfect and nobody ever commits Centrelink fraud then just lol. My argument was that the idea that this would act as a deterrent doesn't make sense given even your examples of why people do defraud Centrelink, and our understanding of how possible punishment works in the decisions to commit non violent crimes. So if it doesn't actually work the way you want it to work in your understanding of the world, and it doesn't work in the scientific understanding of the world, we are forced to wonder, what is your real reason for wanting it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 05:17
|
|
|
Nice meltdown
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 05:23
|
|
|
They figured it out. Throw a soundbite out about a ridiculous debt, harvest the outrage and when it inevitably fucks up, blame the algorithm. It works for Facebook and Google.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 05:32
|
|
|
Gentleman Baller posted:My argument was that the idea that this would act as a deterrent doesn't make sense given even your examples of why people do defraud Centrelink, and our understanding of how possible punishment works in the decisions to commit non violent crimes. My understanding of why intentional fraud is committed in the specific first-hand experiences I've dealt with and know of personally is that it comes from some combination (usually) of: 1. It isn't a big deal. 2. I know many people doing it. 3. These people do not get caught. Therefore, I will not be caught. 4. The system is broken and out to gently caress me, therefore it is morally correct for me to try and gently caress the system. Regarding 1., I do believe that increased penalties will help counter this attitude. 2. is a self-justification, and 3. is a logical fallacy. 4. is also a philosophical ethical position, which I'm not even going to touch, but would be easier to counter by unfucking the system (through measures which would include, but not be limited to, hiring more staff, increasing transparency about processes and waiting times, and generally allocating more resources and funding). I recognise that the only one of those reasons that would be addressed by increased penalties for intentional fraud (which is specifically what I'm talking about) is 1., and that's fine. I'm not claiming it's a whole solution, or the only thing we need and everything will be perfect if we do it. I support greater allocation of resources to Centrelink and the social support system as a whole. I also am not in any way advocating that "if Centrelink says you're committing intentional fraud, that's it, you have to pay it back at 9% no takesies backsies". Administrative review is a crucial part of the judicial process, and oversight is important. I just can't get morally outraged at the idea of increased penalties for people who are knowingly and intentionally committing fraud.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 05:32
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/SkyNewsAust/status/987182981428142080
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 05:39
|
|
|
beep boop, making decision without accurately assessing risk: illogical. your hope of not getting caught is a fallacy my good sir,
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 05:44
|
|
|
the baby is a fake and being used to get more public money
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 05:45
|
|
|
Whitlam posted:I just can't get morally outraged at the idea of increased penalties for people who are knowingly and intentionally committing fraud. conveniently, i ignore the increased penalty that will also apply to people who are not knowingly and intentionally committing fraud,
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 05:46
|
|
|
loving lol at moral outrage as if its somehow lesser than pure outrage, or logical outrage, or lemon outrage. i just can't bring myself to get mad at this morally, it goes against the circuits embedded in my braincomputer
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 05:48
|
|
|
Netflix has commissioned an Adam Goodes documentary. https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/adam-goodes-controversy-a-sorry-affair-for-football-20180420-p4zapq.html
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 05:49
|
|
|
bell jar posted:conveniently, i ignore the increased penalty that will also apply to people who are not knowingly and intentionally committing fraud, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-20/centrelink-cracking-down-on-$900m-worth-of-welfare-debts/9677886 posted:Those in the government's sights are no longer claiming welfare benefits, but racked up debts from former false claims.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 05:53
|
|
|
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-20/centrelink-cracking-down-on-$900m-worth-of-welfare-debts/9677886 posted:The bungled Centrelink robo-debt program resulted in large numbers of people wrongly pursued for overpayment of social security benefits.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 05:55
|
|
|
Whitlam posted:I just can't get morally outraged at the idea of increased penalties for people who are knowingly and intentionally committing fraud. How about getting morally outraged at an executive agency involved in determining and setting penalties for people knowing and committing fraud? I mean, what is the use of separation of powers. it is so much more efficient this way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 05:56
|
|
|
Whitlam posted:I recognise that the only one of those reasons that would be addressed by increased penalties for intentional fraud (which is specifically what I'm talking about) is 1., and that's fine. I'm not claiming it's a whole solution, or the only thing we need and everything will be perfect if we do it. I support greater allocation of resources to Centrelink and the social support system as a whole. I also am not in any way advocating that "if Centrelink says you're committing intentional fraud, that's it, you have to pay it back at 9% no takesies backsies". Administrative review is a crucial part of the judicial process, and oversight is important. I just can't get morally outraged at the idea of increased penalties for people who are knowingly and intentionally committing fraud. One of those points might be somewhat addressed, I'm incredibly skeptical that it'll do much. And with how bad a punishment this could end up being, it's a very important distinction. Especially compared to like, just imposing a bigger fine, if financial punishment is what you really want. We already have an oversight committee and that is the the public prosecutors and courts to decide if Centrelink's referral is valid or not. It's pretty good and the Dept. of Human Services asking to get around it pretty loving huge. The biggest problem with this, aside from the fact that courts sometimes get it wrong, is that even if this debt actually sends you bankrupt, it won't end. It will continue growing and Centrelink has the ability to send debt collectors after you forever. Since you work with homeless people I'm sure you're aware of how many of them have gotten there largely due to financial hardship, so I really have to wonder how you think giving so many people financial hardship for the rest of their actual lives is a good thing. One year of a fraudulent DSP is $22k, and it's a crime, but if a 17 year old does it for two years, they're going to have to keep paying $4k to the government every year for the rest of their life just to combat the interest. And that's assuming interest rates don't go up. I support punishment as part of the rehabilitation system but this is actually insane. Gentleman Baller fucked around with this message at 06:11 on Apr 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 06:01
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/leunig_is_dril/status/924773656089133056
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 06:42
|
|
|
Gentleman Baller posted:A fair and good post These are good points, and I'll take them on board. I still think that increased penalties for deliberate fraud, especially after payments have finished, isn't a bad thing, but I definitely don't think it should ruin someone's life forever. That's where I think it's important to be flexible about the payment amount and interest rate - if someone is determined not to pay and doesn't have the means, it doesn't make a difference whether the interest rate is 9% or 99%. If someone does have the means (i.e. they're gainfully employed and earning above the minimum wage) and is just refusing to pay, that's when I think greater punative measures (e.g. "we'll increase your interest rate and refer you to the police") can be of use.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 06:49
|
|
|
hot take: idc if ppl defraud centrelink
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 06:49
|
|
|
Whitlam posted:If someone does have the means (i.e. they're gainfully employed and earning above the minimum wage) and is just refusing to pay, that's when I think greater punative measures (e.g. "we'll increase your interest rate and refer you to the police") can be of use. I know you don't like me because I don't engage with you in a pure melding of the minds a la star trek, but a couple of points from me: What makes you think that gainful employment and earning above the minimum wage de facto gives someone the means to repay a debt with interest? What if their costs of living (housing, private debt, healthcare, groceries, etc) prohibit them from repaying it? What makes you think that "we'll refer you to the police" isn't a strong enough punishment and merits imposition of an arbitrary repayment increase as well? If welfare fraud is a criminal matter, why does imposing a civil penalty assist? If a referral to the police results in no action being taken, is it still justified to charge them the extra interest?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 06:57
|
|
|
What if incredibly large brain voice the people who aren't repaying their Centrelink debts are the people who can't afford it, instead of people choosing not to pay? Do you know if these people exist, or what percentage of people with unpaid outstanding debts have the financial capacity to repay? Does it matter if Centrelink debts are repaid promptly?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 07:00
|
|
|
gas this loving thread
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 07:13
|
|
|
Yeah move on let’s talk about goodsey
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 07:25
|
|
|
Milky Moor posted:gas this loving thread that seems like it would unfairly punish the posters who are accidently posting bad in an attempt to punish those who are deliberately posting bad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 07:29
|
|
|
GoldStandardConure posted:that seems like it would unfairly punish the posters who are accidently posting bad in an attempt to punish those who are deliberately posting bad. I actually laughed at this, thank you
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 07:37
|
|
|
bell jar i think on balance you are on the side with the strongest point in this argument but jesus christ you’re a dickhead
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 07:40
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:bell jar i think on balance you are on the side with the strongest point in this argument but jesus christ you’re a dickhead  
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 07:44
|
|
|
In My Mailbox: a plea from Di Natale to donate $4.20 on this most auspicious day duuuudes. With this helpful cartoon: Everyone is losing their minds in different ways lately.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 07:45
|
|
GoldStandardConure posted:that seems like it would unfairly punish the posters who are accidently posting bad in an attempt to punish those who are deliberately posting bad. gas it twice
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 07:52
|
|
|
420, the weed number.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 07:52
|
|
|
noice maltdown
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 07:53
|
|
|
Milky Moor posted:gas it twice he's reading this thread he's gassing it twice
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 07:59
|
|
|
Ipswich City Council has pledged to start recycling again, announcing an "interim solution" to its rubbish problem after its decision to cease recycling sparked a major furore. The council will look to hire a short-term recycling contractor, for up to six months, so it can stop dumping recycling from residents' yellow top bins in landfill. Just two days ago, Ipswich mayor Andrew Antoniolli said the city had ceased recycling, arguing contractor costs would have risen by $2 million per year, equating to a 1.5 to 2 per cent rate rise for residents, as a result of a Chinse clampdown on imported recyclable material. It was later revealed recycling had been taken to landfill for four weeks before residents were informed. Cr Antoniolli also blamed the city's unacceptably high "contamination rate" in yellow top bins, with 52 per cent of materials unable to be recycled. In contrast, in Brisbane, 93 per cent of materials placed in yellow top bins are able to be recycled. In a statement released on Friday afternoon, Cr Antoniolli said the council had been upfront with the people. "We have proudly sparked a national debate on council waste management practice," he said. "This is an issue of global significance, and our position is strong." Cr Antoniolli said the short-term contract was an interim solution, but it was now up to the people of Ipswich to ensure they were using yellow top bins properly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 08:06
|
|
|
I wish we could send this thread to Ipswich
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 08:14
|
|
|
Sparticle posted:I wish we could send this thread to Ipswich EDIT - I'll be in Brisbane on the W/E maybe I can fix it 
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 08:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 05:48 |
|
|
The Daily Telegraph’s attempt to again amend its defence in the defamation lawsuit brought by the actor Geoffrey Rush has been rejected by a federal court judge. Justice Michael Wigney also dismissed a bid by the newspaper to launch a cross-claim against Sydney Theatre Company, describing the proposal as “very weak if not tenuous”. The 66-year-old Oscar-winner is suing the Telegraph and and its journalist, Jonathon Moran, in the federal court over stories published in late 2017 alleging Rush behaved inappropriately with a colleague during a Sydney Theatre Company production of King Lear in 2015. Rush has rejected the allegations. The Telegraph denies the articles made Rush out to be a pervert and a predator, arguing no allegations of a sexual nature were made. Wigney on Friday said Rush, like any litigant, was entitled to expect his defamation claim would be resolved as quickly, inexpensively and efficiently as possible. But, regrettably, the approach taken by Nationwide News and Moran in defending the claim “threatens to stymie or frustrate” that objective, the judge said. “It would be fair to say that while Nationwide and Mr Moran were quick to publish, they have been slow to defend.” Wigney set the defamation hearing down for 3 September and ordered the parties to mediate at a time yet to be set.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 08:50
|
|