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?
-
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.
