Intereresting article on JSA claimants - massive fraud going on?

PaulF81

heathcote123 wrote: »

Erm, I think your mates have got it wrong. They need to charge their rate+VAT. Thats what normal businesses do.

If they're invoicing out 75k (vat threshold) and working cash in hand they deserve a public flogging.

Good way of not getting trade when plenty are happy to work sans VAT...

drwho2011

kabayiri wrote: »

I think the scheme described is a good one, but my concern is around timing.

Why wasn't this an issue demanding a response pre-credit crunch? Surely it's the duty of the state workers to ensure public money is spent as efficiently as possible ALL the time.

I think before 2007 there was a complacent attitude to spending state money.

Between 2007-2008 the JSA claimant count doubled in my borough so went to approx 20,000, it fell by about 500 by 2010 but its now exceeded that figure again.

One week I made 12 fraud referrals from everything from people coming in wearing work uniforms, partners of "single" parents hanging around outside the JCP while they went in for interviews, people being dropped off and picked up in company vans, when calling customers up to remind them of interviews they'd missed I was told they weren't in because they were at work (this occurred with 3 people in a single week, I'd only asked to speak to Mr xxxxxxx, without saying who was calling they later rescheduled because they were "sick").

chewmylegoff

PaulF81 wrote: »

wouldnt work old chap. Most of the guys I encounter "Cash in hand" are those that are just crossing the VAT threshold and cant afford the VAT bill as a result, or those under threshold falling on bad times, needing every penny they can get. Only one way to pay trade in my view, and thats with cold hard cash.

Thats not to mention "barter trade" between those in the industry, or paying trade with 200 B+H.

I think you've missed the point. The point was that it would stop people who are working cash in hand from signing on to claim JSA, not that it would stop them from working cash in hand.

StevieJ

tartanterra wrote: »

Whilst the figures are clearly "unofficial", I wouldn't be surprised if they were far off the mark.

Anyone who believes that there is no one in this country who is work shy, fiddling benefits, or working cash in hand is fooling themselves.

.

I think the only people who think that are being cared for by the state I think the question is degree and whether people should be made to work for benefits for what effectively would be well below the minimum wage,

heathcote123

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Would be interesting to see what would happen if they focussed their anti-fraud resources on the people who immediately signed off...

Absolutley - if the figures are correct, think of the knock on effects with housing benefit etc.

drwho2011

StevieJ wrote: »

I think the only people who think that are being cared for by the state I think the question is degree and whether people should be made to work for benefits for what effectively would be well below the minimum wage,

Except your assuming the only benefit claimed is JSA and not housing costs etc.

I saw one woman who had 2 kids (single parent) and whenever I tried to refer her for a vacancy she would point out her rent was £1,400 pm. Given she only wanted to work 16-20 hrs a week because she couldn't possibly leave her 13 and 16 yr old's alone there was no chance she make any effort to find employment.

To give you a rough idea what she would have been getting in addition to free school meals and prescriptions (and ignoring child maintenance as it wouldn't effect means tested benefits).

Child Tax Credit........ £5,662
JSA........ £3,529.28
Council Tax Benefit........ £1,190
Housing Benefit........ £17,254
Child Benefit........ £1,762

Total ........ £29,397
Weekly Total........ £562.25

If you discount the child benefit it works out equivalent as a pretax salary of £35,000, not bad if you don't even have GCSE's

heathcote123

PaulF81 wrote: »

Good way of not getting trade when plenty are happy to work sans VAT...

Bit silly to pay for your shopping when you can just shoplift.

StevieJ

drwho2011 wrote: »

If you discount the child benefit it works out equivalent as a pretax salary of £35,000, not bad if you don't even have GCSE's

Are you not missing the point, she is hardly likely to stop claiming because she has to do some nominated work, is she?

robmatic

StevieJ wrote: »

Are you not missing the point, she is hardly likely to stop claiming because she has to do some nominated work, is she?

The point you were making was that people shouldn't have to do this nominated work as it's effectively in your eyes less than 'minimum wage'. Clearly, people receive more than just JSA.

deary65

Never going to happen, won't stand up in court!

R v Knowles, ex parte Somersett!(1772)!

The state of slavery is of such a nature, that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political; but only positive law, which preserves its force long after the reasons, occasion, and time itself from whence it was created, is erased from memory: it's so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law. Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from a decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England; and therefore the black must be discharged

On behalf of Somersett it was argued that while colonial laws might permit slavery, neither the common law of England nor any law made by!Parliament!recognised the existence of slavery, and slavery was therefore illegal.[3]!Moreover, English contract law did not allow for any person to enslave himself, nor could any contract be binding without the person's consent. The arguments thus focused on legal details rather than humanitarian principles. When the two lawyers for Charles Stewart put their case, they argued that property was paramount and that it would be dangerous to free all the black people in England.

Dicta lord Mansfield,

' No man in this kingdom can be subjected to the will of another, without their express consent and agreement, for any man who walks these lands we call England and breaths the air breaths that air, as a free man. Moreover, if this court were to decide otherwise, it would strike a mortal blow to the very soul of are nationhood and deprive our constitution of its vitality, rendering us all to become nothing more than slaves subjected to the will of the state' In other words, it is not the function of the state to decide what peoples bargains should be.
To say or interpret what is in the mind of another, is one thing, to say what should be in the mind of another, that is a very different thing, for that would be to commence a journey down the road to fascism.