I would like to see a protest against .....

[Guest American Woman]

How many people are committing welfare fraud? Do we even know what that percentage is? Do people care? It's part of the 99%. I think that's a given.

This is one of the problems I have with the OWS protesters. If they were truly angry with abuse of the system, they would be just as angry at those abusing the welfare system as they are with those getting tax breaks/using tax loopholes. Yet they seem to be concerned with only one end of the problem; holding only one side accountable.

How many people who could be working aren't? How many people are getting paid in cash and paying no taxes? How many people are on disability, yet manage to live a very active personal life style? How many people keep having baby after baby - on the taxpayers' dime? How many people could have a second job to make ends meet, but don't want to put themselves out - so they collect welfare instead? How much debt would be eliminated if people carried their own weight? How much money is welfare fraud costing us?

If the protesters are going to be angry at the rich, they should be at least as angry at those abusing the system, as they are costing us all hard earned money. At least the rich are contributing a lot of money to the system while welfare fraud only drains the system. Yet I doubt we'll ever see that - that's one protest that's likely never to take place. In the U.S. or Canada.

I meant for this "protest" to be about welfare abuse, not just fraud, but that may not be clear, so I'm editing the title accordingly.

Edited October 21, 2011 by American Woman

[cybercoma]

What does this have to do with Canada/US relations? In Canada, social assistance is a provincial matter and the benefits have some variation by province. And as far as it pertains to foreign relations, I have no idea.

[fellowtraveller]

that is an awful lot of questions, and only some related to welfare fraud, but I'll have a crack at it.

Around 1995 the provincvial govt in AB implemented some simple new rules for qualification for welfare. Basically they said that if you are employable, and have no dependents, you get nothing on an ongoing basis. That means that iof you are employable and do have dependents, you can qualify but they also have tried fairly hard to train those folks into places where they can get jobs and support themselves.

But basically if you are single and not diabled, you're on your own. The result was that the welfare rolls went from around 100k to less than half that, quickly. It also cut the careers of many social workers short.

The changes cut a lot of fraud out as there were fewer cases per worker and the rules were clear. If you are able, you work. Luckily this was accompanied by plenty of work available, though some of did involve sweat and low wages.

If you are single and employabvle and really down on your luck, you can get very short term help and you can also hit the shelters.

People with long term disabilities are on a different scheme and by all accounts do not live particularly well in most cases.

[cybercoma]

That would be a wonderful policy, if full employment were possible and there was no such thing as cyclical unemployment. Great for Alberta where there's a labour shortage, horrible policy anywhere else.

Ontario had a fraud line where people could call to report welfare fraud. You know what the best part was about this reporting system? The people that were being ratted out 9 times out of 10 were not even on welfare.

Now I"m not saying fraud doesn't happen, but it's not as rampant as people would like to think. You're not living the good life on $600/month. It's a ridiculous notion to think people go on welfare because they're lazy and don't want to work. You can't live on it. It's more or less enough money to keep you off the street and that's it.

[jacee]

Ya, I'd like to see that too!

A bunch of preppy rich people in designer labels parading through the streets protesting 'welfare fraud'.

Let me know where/when and I'll bring my video camera. Suggest you come 'downtown' ... ie, to the belly of the beast.

Thanks AMWO. I needed a good laugh.

Edited October 20, 2011 by jacee

[cybercoma]

Feel free to ignore this report on welfare fraud in Ontario. The results don't support your beliefs:

http://www.oaith.ca/assets/files/Publications/Poverty/Welfare-Fraud-as-Crime.pdf

In addition to the number of convictions, it is important to observe the very substantial numbers of fraud investigations ... The number of convictions for 2001-02 (393 convictions) is roughly equivalent to 0.1 percent of the combined social assistance caseload and one percent of the total number of allegations.

1% of all allegations result in conviction and only amounts to a tenth of a percent of all social assistance cases.

[jacee]

I will add (seriously) that where it exists, welfare fraud is often in the private small business sector, where losses are counted against income and negative earnings qualify a family for welfare.

We went through massive expensive investigation of welfare fraud with Mike Harris, and very little was found. He didn't seem to care about the private business sector's contribution somehow, and they are selddom identified by those concerned about welfare fraud ... because they are working ... though apparently 'at a loss'.

(While feeding their families in their restaurants ... accounting for the losses perhaps?)

AMWO, maybe you should find out whether welfare fraud exists in your jurisdiction before you send your protest 'callout'.

Edited October 20, 2011 by jacee

[guyser]

How many people are committing welfare fraud? Do we even know what that percentage is? Do people care? It's part of the 99%. I think that's a given.

We dont know exactly, but it is less than prevailing wisdom would suggest.

This is one of the problems I have with the OWS protesters. If they were truly angry with abuse of the system, they would be just as angry at those abusing the welfare system as they are with those getting tax breaks/using tax loopholes. Yet they seem to be concerned with only one end of the problem; holding only one side accountable.

I am unsure if the comparison is equal.

One the one hand the OWS are protesting the legal means that businesses and corps get bailed out for being dumb and or lacking in oversight, whereas on the other hand welfare fraud is a criminal act, one in which it is quite hard to get a conviction for because the ability to prove 'fraud' in welfare cases is quite diffulcult.

[jacee]

The case of Kimberly Rogers caused a second look at 'welfare fraud': She was convicted for collecting both student loans and welfare. She graduated from college, a straight A student though subject to chronic depression. She was cut off welfare for life, ordered to repay her loans and welfare ($62,000) and sentenced to house arrest. (How could she repay without working?) She died in her upper floor apt during a heat wave with no food in the apt, eight months pregnant at the time.

Another perspective:

A woman has MS. She socializes once a week, requiring her to spend the day before and after in bed to rest up/recuperate. The day she comes out she looks healthy and enjoys herself.

Some wealthy people in her social group think she's committing fraud, not really disabled, because she makes the effort to look good and enjoy her 3 hrs a week of socializing.

Pigs! :angry:

Edited October 20, 2011 by jacee

[cybercoma]

I am unsure if the comparison is equal.

The comparison is equal only insofar as they're both protesting the 1%. In American Woman's case, she's protesting 1% of welfare recipients.

[guyser]

She was cut off welfare for life,

Three months , not life

[jacee]

Three months , not life

Mike Harris' law was cut off for LIFE when fraud of welfare OR disability was committed.

[bush_cheney2004]

Some wealthy people in her social group think she's committing fraud, not really disabled, because she makes the effort to look good and enjoy her 3 hrs a week of socializing.

Pigs! :angry:

Many disabled people are employable and hold jobs....bums!

[jacee]

From cybercoma's link and the auditors' report, I find the following for Ontario:

Welfare recipients - 200,000

Dependents. - 100,000

Total 300,000 = 2.5% of the population

Welfare fraud 'hotline' investigations - 38,000

Not on welfare - 34,200

Committing fraud - 38

= .1% of those investigated

= .02 % of recipients (corrected)

IE, 1 in every 5,000 recipients may commit some welfare fraud.

Most commonly, it may involve only the 'special diet' allowance (about $50/mo) or might be undeclared spouse-in-the-house.

Where 'spouse' also receives welfare, there is a clawback, but it's not large ($200/mo).

If temporary 'spouse' has a job, they usually disappear pretty fast if woman and kids lose their welfare benefits and he'll have to support them.

So in $$$ we are probably looking at a heck of a lot less than those investigations cost!

Edited October 21, 2011 by jacee

[jacee]

Many disabled people are employable and hold jobs....bums!

And many can't. Doctors decide.

What's your point?

[jacee]

How many people are committing welfare fraud? Do we even know what that percentage is? Do people care? It's part of the 99%. I think that's a given.

This is one of the problems I have with the OWS protesters. If they were truly angry with abuse of the system, they would be just as angry at those abusing the welfare system as they are with those getting tax breaks/using tax loopholes. Yet they seem to be concerned with only one end of the problem; holding only one side accountable.

How many people who could be working aren't? How many people are getting paid in cash and paying no taxes? How many people are on disability, yet manage to live a very active personal life style? How many people keep having baby after baby - on the taxpayers' dime? How many people could have a second job to make ends meet, but don't want to put themselves out - so they collect welfare instead? How much debt would be eliminated if people carried their own weight? How much money is welfare fraud costing us?

If the protesters are going to be angry at the rich, they should be at least as angry at those abusing the system, as they are costing us all hard earned money. At least the rich are contributing a lot of money to the system while welfare fraud only drains the system. Yet I doubt we'll ever see that - that's one protest that's likely never to take place. In the U.S. or Canada.

Why not? Rich people complain about it all the time. Are you saying they're TOO LAZY to do anything about it?

Re "% of the population committing welfare fraud" ...

In Ontario, it's about .0003% of the population,

$50,000 per year max. TOTAL.

But hey ... if rich people everywhere want to wast their time protesting about peanuts, who am I to stop them.

[Moonlight Graham]

People should be concerned with any kind of fraud. I don't know how big of a problem it is in US or Canada. A big difference though between welfare fraud and the things committed by Wall Street and their ilk is that a good chunk of these "money-men" were in no small part responsible for the current economic recession (which should be much the focus of the OWS'ers IMO). I dislike both, but I know who I dislike more.

[jacee]

I agree fraud is wrong.

However I think the numbers say that there's a greater perception of fraud (38,000 people reported on the 'hotline') than actual fraud (38).

It might be a good idea to have a similar investigation of stock market fraud ... a hotline ... hmmm ...

[capricorn]

It might be a good idea to have a similar investigation of stock market fraud ... a hotline ... hmmm ...

Questions and Complaints

Report a possible securities fraud

Ask a question or report a problem concerning your investments, your investment account or a financial professional

Learn about the whistleblower provisions in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act

http://www.sec.gov/complaint/select.shtml (my bolding)

[cybercoma]

http://www.sec.gov/complaint/select.shtml (my bolding)

What jumped out at me was the part that says, "Ask a question or report a problem concerning your investments, your investment account or a financial professional." While I recognize that it does say in general "a financial professional", it appears that this reporting line is focused on people that have had problems with their personal investments. I find that particularly interesting in light of this Gallup poll, which states, "the percentage of Americans saying they hold individual stocks, stock mutual funds, or stocks in their 401(k) or IRA fell to 54% in April [2011]-- the lowest level since Gallup began monitoring stock ownership annually in 1999." That means that nearly half of Americans don't actually own any sort of stocks. It makes it awfully difficult to report investment fraud when you don't own any stock. That's not to mention that the minds on Wall Street that can work derivatives to leech the wealth out of the system are not going to make it easy to uncover their handy work if they're involved in illegal or questionable activities.

Edited October 21, 2011 by cybercoma

[bush_cheney2004]

And many can't. Doctors decide.

What's your point?

Doctors don't decide....people do. Sometimes can't means won't, facilitated by the usual pity pot vendors (like you).

[bush_cheney2004]

.... That means that nearly half of Americans don't actually own any sort of stocks. It makes it awfully difficult to report investment fraud when you don't own any stock.

Not necessarily, unless you want to make up some more guesses about Americans and equities investment from Canada!

[cybercoma]

My guesses about Americans and equities investments are a reference to a Gallup Poll asked of Americans and their investments. I shouldn't have taken you off ignore. Your trolling has become absurd.

[bush_cheney2004]

My guesses about Americans and equities investments are a reference to a Gallup Poll asked of Americans and their investments. I shouldn't have taken you off ignore. Your trolling has become absurd.

You have yet to retract your mistaken post about Americans and stock ownership, being too lazy or arrogant to do the research in the first place. I am here to expose your lies.

[cybercoma]

You have yet to retract your mistaken post about Americans and stock ownership, being too lazy or arrogant to do the research in the first place. I am here to expose your lies.

If you're looking for a retraction, take it up with Gallup, who found that nearly half of Americans (46%) didn't own stock investments.