Leonidas
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Bring on the pig!
Does this discussion have anything to do with FIRE?
Does anyone know how these welfare benefits are means tested? If I had like $500k in stocks in a taxable account and they threw off 3% in divs, for $15k, and lets say I have a house paid off. Could I get some "free stuff"?
I don't want to be a scammer. I'd just like to get some of my money back. Nothing illegal, just from following the rules and requirements as they are spelled out.
I suspect there are very few people who begrudge the social safety net our system provides - 'there but for the grace of...' And I think almost everyone is willing to pay taxes & fees to help those who really can't help themselves for whatever reason. But with 1 in 6 receiving benefits, people probably can't help but wonder if the corruption that you mention isn't more widespread than we should accept or want to afford. It's not hard to find examples of people who seem to be gaming the system, though it's very hard to know for sure. I've seen it at my local grocery store a hundred times, and cashiers will tell you they see it all the time.Before this thread gets shut down...I want to get in my $.02.
I would rather focus on our many blessings. Sure, there are corrupt people, but really, there isn't too much I can do about it. I would rather pay attention to the here and now - I have my hands full managing Antmary's life. It seems to be part of the human condition to take advantage, but it also part of the human condition to visualize a better world, and to live in that reality.
I will say, though, that I am very grateful for our social safety net. During my travels, it has given me no joy to see old people begging, to see disabled children with few opportunities for treatment. I will venture to say that most places on earth don't even have 911.
(CNNMoney) -- One in six Americans is receiving help from the government, just as fiscal austerity threatens to reduce some of that aid.
Are we willing to contribute directly to families or charities to take care of those who need a hand if we shut down the government programs that do it now? Would that be cheaper and easier and more efficient?
I don't mind an individual applying for "benefits" they are legally entitled. It is the government that makes the "benefits" so easy to get is the problem. Then the people that do scam the system are allowed to get away with it for any number of reasons that boil down to the government pretty much does everything, except going to foreign countries and killing bad guys, poorly. There isn't much the government has made itself responsible for that isn't worse than it used to be. Health care, education, airport security, you name it. Sure it gets bigger and more money is thrown at it, but it doesn't get better and many times gets worse.
Maybe more people are being "helped" by welfare than were being helped by churches and service orgs in the past, but how much more does it cost? How much more fraud and waste is there? And how many more people have become dependant on the seemingly endless support from the government? I'm not saying we shouldn't have some kind of social safety net for those truly in need, but they way we do it now is wrong for so many reasons.
I suspect there are very few people who begrudge the social safety net our system provides - 'there but for the grace of...' And I think almost everyone is willing to pay taxes & fees to help those who really can't help themselves for whatever reason. But with 1 in 6 receiving benefits, people probably can't help but wonder if the corruption that you mention isn't more widespread than we should accept or want to afford. It's not hard to find examples of people who seem to be gaming the system, though it's very hard to know for sure. I've seen it at my local grocery store a hundred times, and cashiers will tell you they see it all the time.
Midpack said:It seems politics are closer to the surface here lately, though an old hand told me it's probably because we're coming up on a Presidential election (which makes sense).
The Associated Press: State: Mom who shot kids, self denied food stampsA Texas woman who for months was unable to qualify for food stamps pulled a gun in a state welfare office and staged a seven-hour standoff with police that ended with her shooting her two children before killing herself, officials said Tuesday.
Yup. Soon, I plan on crawling into a hole, and pulling in the hole after me 'for the duration'. I'll come out after the smoldering embers of the Internet have cooled.
I've been through this drill on message boards, and earlier on USENET newsgroups, every election cycle since 1984. :-(
And now for something related but entirely different:
The Associated Press: State: Mom who shot kids, self denied food stamps
Got any spare room in there?Yup. Soon, I plan on crawling into a hole, and pulling in the hole after me 'for the duration'. I'll come out after the smoldering embers of the Internet have cooled.
I've been through this drill on message boards, and earlier on USENET newsgroups, every election cycle since 1984. :-(
lhamo said:This article, which was the first one I read about this situation, names the couple (the male partner is apparently a successful chiropractor) and indicates that they may not actually be married (or may have hidden that fact when requesting benefits).
Welfare fraud investigators raid $1.2 million Lake Washington home - seattlepi.com
I wonder what percentage of welfare spending goes toward monitoring and fraud prevention. This is one of the catch 22 elements of the situation. There will always be some people who try to cheat the system. So what percentage of limited resources do you put into trying to prevent/catch that. Seems like there was not enough due diligence done in this case, though.
Great idea, but of course it runs against the bureaucratic imperative, which is to increase budget and headcount without cease.I have often wondered that too since, you always here about cutting waste and fraud, to help balance the budget, but I dont often see a plan. The system to me anyways seems set up to assist more than catch the fraudulant activity. If you create a fruad department, well you might just increase fraud and inefficiency How about highering retired accountants and policemen who work for free, but get 25 cents on the dollar for every recoverable dollar of fraud. Could possibly make many people millionaires and save government millions at the same time!