Benefit myths and those who fall for them

[DexterTCN]

I just want a late night rant, nothing special. I can't do or say anything about it. Ever. But it really annoys me (so much so I'll start a sentence with but)

She did a facebook post about something called Saints and Scroungers...no idea what it is but by what she was saying I got the idea....she had a rant about scroungers....I pointed out some stuff and some stats and said you know 'saints and scroungers' is a bit of a mind-fuck anyway (but not like that).

she posted.....

I'm certainly not 'hostile' to those on benefits, I know that there are thousands of people who struggle to get by on honestly gained benefits, I'm simply stating that there are many people who exploit the benefits system for their own gain, people who earn far more than they admit in order to remain under the earnings threshold which would entitle them to government assistance, people who claim they are single yet have been living with their partner's for years, people who claim they're disabled and so can't work yet have 2 jobs, etc etc etc. The benefit system is too easy for people to manipulate for their own gain. I understand there are many people who feel the only way to dig themselves out of a financial black hole is to lie but whether they are genuinely at breaking point or are just plain greedy does either make it acceptable? We are all adults and should be in control of our finances without having to commit fraud to top up our bank accounts. I'd love to have a bit of extra cash every month but unless I screw the system, rob a bank or mug a few old ladies I'll just need to stick to spending only what I earn, honestly and legitimately.

Honest to fucking god (I'm an atheist). 1700 people lost there jobs just before xmas when a food plant shut down here. I just want to rip her to fucking bits.

But....she's my best female friend's sister. So I leave it.

This obviously was not good enough for me, so I put it here.

 

[weepiper]

Just post this and then block her for your own blood pressure's sake

 

[quimcunx]

There is already a thread about these sorts of facebook statuses, well not just ones about benefits just any shit ones.

Try sharing the infographic from this. It's been all round my facebook today.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ory-welfare-myths-shows-new-poll-8437872.html

e2a: and suggest she saves her ire for the people cheating the benefit system so much more.

 

[DexterTCN]

What are you doing q!

I'll post it on my timeline, not hers. You're a woman, our posts were 10 hours ago....I'll post it just now if you think it won't have ramifications. Not a 'reasonable proof' thing either, the judgement of the sisterhood is a powerful thing.

I can post it in 3 days, how's that?

 

[DexterTCN]

I've posted it.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Hands up who saw the title and thought this thread was gonna be about whether or not it's OK to shag your best friend's sister?

 

[Puddy_Tat]

you could always say it with a lolcat

 

[SpookyFrank]

Hands up who saw the title and thought this thread was gonna be about whether or not it's OK to shag your best friend's sister?

It's really not acceptable by the way.

 

[DexterTCN]

My best male friend's sister is his twin.

That's not a wind up.

 

[xenon]

It's a cliche but really, if it's so fucking good and apparently easy, to live of the state instead of working. Why don't these moaning interlectually retarded fuckwits give it a go. It's the predictable kick them beneath you bullshit. OH I didnt' mean htem. You know, just all the other scroungers the papers talk about. Or Jimmy whatsit with a bad back, down the pub.

The old divide and rule. It's working a treat. Why isn't your best friend's sister talking about throwing politicians and bankers threw closed windows. I mean, It doesn't help me but you know, it's something to say, rather than looking like a totaly gullable mug. (rather than a partially gullable mug.)

 

[quimcunx]

I'm beginning to wonder if a better way to treat these sorts of things is to ask them what they would do/think should happen and then keep asking 'then what...?' 'So they get their benefits taken off them and therefore have absolutely no money, then what?' 'So...... then what?'

 

[geminisnake]

You should post up a link to here,
http://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/members/pay-mps/
Make sure you C&P the first paragraph, then ask who the fecking scroungers are!

 

[teuchter]

As a matter of interest, how is the figure for "proportion of the welfare budget that is claimed fraudulently" calculated?

 

[Maltin]

Just post this and then block her for your own blood pressure's sake

I'm not really sure what myths that graphic is supposed to dispel. The first two are a percentage of the budget. The discrepancies could be due to the underestimation by the public of what the welfare budget is. Rather than a percentage, it would be more truthful to publish actual figures.

As teuchter notes, the second stat is meaningless. how can anyone claim to know what the "actual" amount fraudulently claimed is.

The other two differences don't seem that huge considering these are presumably guesses based on little knowledge. If I guessed £147 and the actual was £111, I wouldn't think I'd way overestimated. The 28% v 48% is the largest difference but 28% is still quite a large proportion.

 

[existentialist]

I'm not really sure what myths that graphic is supposed to dispel. The first two are a percentage of the budget. The discrepancies could be due to the underestimation by the public of what the welfare budget is. Rather than a percentage, it would be more truthful to publish actual figures.

As teuchter notes, the second stat is meaningless. how can anyone claim to know what the "actual" amount fraudulently claimed is.

The other two differences don't seem that huge considering these are presumably guesses based on little knowledge. If I guessed £147 and the actual was £111, I wouldn't think I'd way overestimated. The 28% v 48% is the largest difference but 28% is still quite a large proportion.

What is significant isn't the actual numbers, but how wide of the mark people's assumptions tend to be. Usually, when arguing with the True Believers, the mere existence of facts is pretty irrelevant to them, but I've scored some palpable hits on people by saying things like "so what proportion of benefits do YOU think is lost to fraud, then?" and then walloped them with the real numbers when they start off going "ooh, I dunno, 20, 30%?".

 

[stuff_it]

Bone her

 

[Maltin]

What is significant isn't the actual numbers, but how wide of the mark people's assumptions tend to be. Usually, when arguing with the True Believers, the mere existence of facts is pretty irrelevant to them, but I've scored some palpable hits on people by saying things like "so what proportion of benefits do YOU think is lost to fraud, then?" and then walloped them with the real numbers when they start off going "ooh, I dunno, 20, 30%?".

I would suggest the actual numbers are more significant than what people's assumptions are.

And again, with the fraud claim, how can you quote actual figures? On what basis?

 

[Fedayn]

I just want a late night rant, nothing special. I can't do or say anything about it. Ever. But it really annoys me (so much so I'll start a sentence with but)

She did a facebook post about something called Saints and Scroungers...no idea what it is but by what she was saying I got the idea....she had a rant about scroungers....I pointed out some stuff and some stats and said you know 'saints and scroungers' is a bit of a mind-fuck anyway (but not like that).

she posted.....



Honest to fucking god (I'm an atheist). 1700 people lost there jobs just before xmas when a food plant shut down here. I just want to rip her to fucking bits.

But....she's my best female friend's sister. So I leave it.

This obviously was not good enough for me, so I put it here.

My mate was a shop steward there, if you tell me her name I could pass it on to him.....

 

[Fedayn]

I'm certainly not 'hostile' to those on benefits

Seems very similar to "I'm not racist but....."

 

[weepiper]

The fraud figure comes from the government's own estimates here

http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd2/fem/fem_1112.pdf

 0.7%, or £1.2bn, of total benefit expenditure is overpaid due to fraud;
 0.9%, or £1.4bn, of total benefit expenditure is overpaid due to claimant error;
 0.5%, or £0.8bn, of total benefit expenditure is overpaid due to official error.
 0.6%, or £0.9bn, of total benefit expenditure is underpaid due to claimant error;
 0.3%, or £0.4bn, of total benefit expenditure is underpaid due to official error.

 

[butchersapron]

I would suggest the actual numbers are more significant than what people's assumptions are.

And again, with the fraud claim, how can you quote actual figures? On what basis?

From the govts own stats - and i suspect that was chosen due to the govts own attempts to pretend that the figure was actually 400% higher, in order to show their planned complicity in the production of these assumptions.

 

[weepiper]

I'm not really sure what myths that graphic is supposed to dispel. The first two are a percentage of the budget. The discrepancies could be due to the underestimation by the public of what the welfare budget is. Rather than a percentage, it would be more truthful to publish actual figures.

Or they could be due to the deliberate conflation of 'welfare' with 'lazy unemployed single person' by the government and the media.

 

[butchersapron]

I would suggest the actual numbers are more significant than what people's assumptions are.

Then you're missing the point of the report (which does rest on the actual figures).

 

[existentialist]

I would suggest the actual numbers are more significant than what people's assumptions are.

And again, with the fraud claim, how can you quote actual figures? On what basis?

The actual numbers ARE significant, but if you're arguing with a typical Christmas-voting turkey, you'll find they will dismiss the numbers with an airy "ahh, facts...". Get them to nail their colours to the mast, eg by proposing a percentage lost to fraud, and hit them with the real numbers, and you're in a different ballgame. That's what is good about that graphic - it demonstrates the yawning gulf between general perceptions and the reality.

 

[Maltin]

The fraud figure comes from the government's own estimates here

http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd2/fem/fem_1112.pdf

Their estimate (i.e. not actual) of total overpayment by fraud and error (less underpayments) is £2.1 billion per year, more than 50% of it due to fraud

 

[butchersapron]

Their estimate (i.e. not actual) of total overpayment by fraud and error (less underpayments) is £2.1 billion per year, more than 50% of it due to fraud

...and you've fallen for the trick - you've run together fraud and error, when the figure quoted is simply fraud. You've highlighted yourself how insidious this is.

 

[existentialist]

There used to be a number floating around of the amount of benefits UNclaimed, and it dwarfed the amount overpaid due to all causes. That seems to have conveniently disappeared, now, but if people are going to conflate all the sources of overpayment as "fraud", then by rights the amount underpaid also should be included...

 

[butchersapron]

There used to be a number floating around of the amount of benefits UNclaimed, and it dwarfed the amount overpaid due to all causes. That seems to have conveniently disappeared, now, but if people are going to conflate all the sources of overpayment as "fraud", then by rights the amount underpaid also should be included...

Around £15-16 billion.

 

[existentialist]

In the end, most people will just believe what they want to believe. Facts have nothing to do with it.

They will. But it's quite handy, if you should be debating within earshot of anyone else - who might be slightly more interested in the reality - to demonstrate the flawed basis on which one of Tory Boy's posterchildren is making their handwaving claims.

But yes, on the whole, arguing numbers with people isn't going to be the best way...though if you are going to do it, some numbers are better than others.

 

[weepiper]

Their estimate (i.e. not actual) of total overpayment by fraud and error (less underpayments) is £2.1 billion per year, more than 50% of it due to fraud

For context, the government spends the same amount as it lost on fraudulent benefit payments on admin costs just for the Foreign Office. Every year. It is, to use an unfortunate Tory phrase, chickenfeed in the greater scheme of things.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8dY-3hzSftCMng5TFBkaFdSb3M/edit?pli=1 (if you can be arsed looking for the figures)