If your government proposed an initiative to tackle fraud, but the initiative would cost more than it would save, would you support it or not?
-
And so on, and so on...
-
I see where you're coming from, but would like to add some nuance (not everywhere is like the US).
As a general rule, I think penalising malicious fraud (i.e. fraud not committed out of dire necessity, but in order to scrape an extra buck) is worth it on a societal level, even if the economic benefits aren't a net positive. It's about sending the message that we live in a society where people need to treat each other fairly, and where we can trust the system to protect us. Even if society as a whole loses money going after some of this fraud, it can mean an enormous amount to the individuals that have been exposed to fraud to know that society has their back.
On the second level, there's welfare fraud. First of all, we definitely have a more generous welfare system where I'm from than what's found in the US, and I think that's a good thing. We also have some issues with people that are capable of working, or who do work under the table, who still claim benefits they aren't qualified for. The major issue I see with it is this: By gaming the system, these people in the long term threaten to make the system unsustainable, thus stealing resources and putting pressure on the people the system is actually designed to help.
In a way I see actual welfare fraud (i.e. people with more than enough resources gaming the system to pull government money they don't need) as worse, because they're violating the trust of a system society has put in place to help the most exposed among us. This kind of fraud indirectly impacts the least resourceful (possibly a poor translation) people in our society.
In either case, I think the social element of fighting fraud is worth it, even if it is a net negative economically. Fraud in general is a severe violation of the social contract we live under, and "letting it slide" contributes to eroding peoples trust in both each other, and the social system as a whole. It's worth spending some money to prevent that.
-
Depends. You could argue that economically speaking it's not worthwhile to stop and cite people for speeding. Police do have discretion on that kind of thing so not the best example, but still, there's probably stuff that isn't good for the bottom line that just needs to happen. The government is not a business.
Now when I say "depends", I would be more inclined to go after a small number of people committing massive fraud than a large number committing minor acts of fraud. In the first case I think charges would discourage future abuse but in the second probably not. It wouldn't be a vast, organized network of people doing the same thing, but a bunch of people that happened to notice the same opportunity. I think you'd do just as well having applicants read and sign a paper that goes over the penalties of abuse (while spending very little resources on enforcement).
-
I would say probably yes, because if you leave something like that enforced, people learn that they can get away with it and the trend spreads.
Sure the enforcement might cost more than it saves today, but it quite likely might cost less than it would cost once the problem expands 5-10 years from today.
-
I would say there is two things at play here one is that you should have is simplifying the compliance requirements to make fraud easier to detect. Like for example in the US for disability if you have more than 2k in your bank account you lose disability.
All these requirements were created to show that a government will offer welfare when they really don't want to. If we just said if you make less than X you get help. It would be simple math and a SQL query to check for fraud. At the same time having a fraud team in that looks at businesses doing the fraud would be better served like with the US Medicaid fraud that dwarfs any fraud coming from individuals.
-
I'd say yes, because dishonesty shouldn't be tolerated. They're going after the million-dollar fraudsters as well, right?
-
Would you think the same if it was about murder?
-
Going after the rich people? Ah you made me laugh. No just poor people.
-
In the "drug test welfare applicants" it was more about putting extra hassles on poor people than a genuine fraud issue. Voter fraud is similarly an excuse to deny voting rights.
-
Depends on where the burden is being placed. If it's adding more hoops for everyday people to jump through to get what they need, no. If it's adding more hoops for large organizations and corporations who can hire people for compliance, yes. If it's just hiring more people on the government side to analyze the existing data, but the application and renewal process stays the same on the other end, sure.
-
Of course not.
-
Cost who, my friend? What kind of fraud? Don’t try to be cute.
For example, if someone gets $3 extra on food stamps, FFS good on them. If Musk gets millions (more, but let’s lowball it), he can rot in hell.
-
Of course we tolerate dishonesty all the time, though.
-
Not unless they had a less expensive initiative to tackle the initiative too.
-
The lack of specificty is also a strategy used to bolster support for deregulation.
Simply say "we are eliminating regulations" , and dont ever talk about what you are deregulating, because actually many regulations are a net good for society and were implemented for a reason. Preventing companies from dumping poison is a regulation.
