Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
These are from the Benefits Agency and their "Targetting Benefit Fraud" website. Somehow I *really* don't think they're going to *under* estimate the monies involved!!
So you would spend one *hundred* times that amount to save £50 million???
Why on earth would he have any interest in mis-representing the figures in that case? What political benefits would there be??
So you have *NO* idea, yet you're willing to throw enough money into it to build, fit out and staff a whole bunch of police stations, hospitals and so on, on the off-chance that there may actually be some benefit down the line?
 |
OK, you are clearly missing one point, and ignoring another... or your maths isn't too good, I'm not sure which.
Firstly, fraud savings can only be estimated, because a lot of fraud goes undetected. That is why when fraud is detected other fraud often comes to light. There are different types of fraud; ongoing fraud, and one-off frauds. The latter type can be more costly, as it may never ever be detected. The figures you are quoting relate to BELIEVED flevels of fraud. I repeat, they CANNOT be accurate. Try speking to someone who works in fraud, you may find it very interesting.
Second point, the figure you quote relates to one type of fraud only, therefore it is the minimum estimate; my previous post stated that there would be many types of fraud. Now, a simple man might acknowledge that there would be savings from each type of fraud, therefore those savings would need to be added together.
I am not sure if you didn't understand what I was saying, or were merely being difficult in an attempt to make me look foolish or ridicule me... I suspect the latter. It matters not, for regardless of whether you like it, this scheme could well be introduced by the next Government. If so, it will be interesting to see the amount saved.
Feel free to write another voluminous reply, I have plenty of time to respond to relevant points.