Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis
This is down to point of view.
The question is which is worse? denying someone benefit who needs it or letting more get away with fraud. To me the former is by far the worse scenario, because if someone doesnt get sickness benefit thats it they have nothing, if then no family or friends carry them they have no way to survive. Whilst the latter is simply just some lost money which is of course offset by underpaid benefits from people not claiming or not getting what they deserve. If draconian rules are in place legit people will be turned down or forced off, no question about it. We seem to be struggling to accept that there will always be fraud and as such its to be written off, the only way to get it down to 0 is to remove the ability to claim full stop. The media managed to get HB caps put in place but again when looking at the data the amount of people who were actually claiming silly HB was a very small fraction, confirmed by the DWP themselves. But the way it was reported made it seem like a widespread problem.
In short the strongest backs can bare the burden better.
|
i'm not saying that benefit fraud can be reduced to zero ,nor am i saying that the government are trying to reduce it to zero ,the point i am trying to make is that the level of fraud at the moment is unsustainable and a
large minority of all claims .If the level of fraud had remained at a
small minority then perhaps such measures as are being proposed wouldn't be necessary.
I think the main problem is that some claimants don't understand that the money they get comes from tax payers ,they don't understand that the more people on benefits of whatever type means less money going to the treasury to pay for a climbing benefit bill