Asklemmy

45414 readers

1376 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

If your government proposed an initiative to tackle fraud, but the initiative would cost more than it would save, would you support it or not? (lemmy.world)

submitted 20 hours ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

21 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I ask because we had a situation in Ireland just like this many years ago. It was for welfare fraud specifically and faced criticism for a few reasons. One was that the suspected levels of fraud may have been much lower than the politician was claiming. The other reason was that the cost of tackling it could likely outweigh any savings.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 4 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Sure! It creates real jobs, while also discouraging people from fucking over the system. Even if there's zero fraud happening, auditing the system to make sure isn't going to hurt. (Well, it won't hurt as long as they don't remove people that are entitled to the benefits.)

[–] [email protected] 9 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

The problem with such systems is that every check introduced in the name of minimising fraud, is an extra hoop that someone needs to jump through to obtain legitimate benefits.

Unless you are also going to boost funding and have a well resourced, easily accesible team available to help people navigate the additional bureaucracy, you are going to do more harm to marginalised people in need than to fraudsters.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 12 hours ago

Sure, I'm completely okay with that too. Although I was thinking of tackling fraud more of an ex post facto audit system, rather than adding in compliance paperwork.

I'm very much not opposed to taxation, including taxing me, if that means that people have stable jobs or get the help they need. And as long as billionaires also get guillotined.