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 ask because we had a situation in Ireland just like this many years ago. It was for welfare fraud specifically and faced criticism for a few reasons. One was that the suspected levels of fraud may have been much lower than the politician was claiming. The other reason was that the cost of tackling it could likely outweigh any savings.
I'd say yes, because dishonesty shouldn't be tolerated. They're going after the million-dollar fraudsters as well, right?
-
I ask because we had a situation in Ireland just like this many years ago. It was for welfare fraud specifically and faced criticism for a few reasons. One was that the suspected levels of fraud may have been much lower than the politician was claiming. The other reason was that the cost of tackling it could likely outweigh any savings.
Would you think the same if it was about murder?
-
I'd say yes, because dishonesty shouldn't be tolerated. They're going after the million-dollar fraudsters as well, right?
Going after the rich people? Ah you made me laugh. No just poor people.
-
I ask because we had a situation in Ireland just like this many years ago. It was for welfare fraud specifically and faced criticism for a few reasons. One was that the suspected levels of fraud may have been much lower than the politician was claiming. The other reason was that the cost of tackling it could likely outweigh any savings.
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.
-
I ask because we had a situation in Ireland just like this many years ago. It was for welfare fraud specifically and faced criticism for a few reasons. One was that the suspected levels of fraud may have been much lower than the politician was claiming. The other reason was that the cost of tackling it could likely outweigh any savings.
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.
-
I ask because we had a situation in Ireland just like this many years ago. It was for welfare fraud specifically and faced criticism for a few reasons. One was that the suspected levels of fraud may have been much lower than the politician was claiming. The other reason was that the cost of tackling it could likely outweigh any savings.
Of course not.
-
I ask because we had a situation in Ireland just like this many years ago. It was for welfare fraud specifically and faced criticism for a few reasons. One was that the suspected levels of fraud may have been much lower than the politician was claiming. The other reason was that the cost of tackling it could likely outweigh any savings.
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.
-
I'd say yes, because dishonesty shouldn't be tolerated. They're going after the million-dollar fraudsters as well, right?
Of course we tolerate dishonesty all the time, though.
-
I ask because we had a situation in Ireland just like this many years ago. It was for welfare fraud specifically and faced criticism for a few reasons. One was that the suspected levels of fraud may have been much lower than the politician was claiming. The other reason was that the cost of tackling it could likely outweigh any savings.
Not unless they had a less expensive initiative to tackle the initiative too.
-
I ask because we had a situation in Ireland just like this many years ago. It was for welfare fraud specifically and faced criticism for a few reasons. One was that the suspected levels of fraud may have been much lower than the politician was claiming. The other reason was that the cost of tackling it could likely outweigh any savings.
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.
-
System shared this topic onSystem shared this topic on
