The Politics Thread

[bovril]

Someone needs to google 'Marxist'.

[Rincewind]

Its ridiculous. Any fool could see at the last election the Tories were the ONLY party that actually had an idea of what they wanted to do and how they'd go about it.

You may not like what they do but at least they had that.

Labour under Milliband were more of a joke than they are now, Clegg killed the Lib Dems and UKIP only really have immigration as a vote winner.

Just as a side note on the benefits thing, anyone who claims that they live an easy life by claiming benefits are full of shit. They'll be earning money on the side.

A while back I was made redundant. I claimed absolutely everything I could and guess what? It didnt even cover the rent. Anyone you know who say they are living off benefits or anyone that says they know somebody that is (not including the disabled, carers, single mothers etc. Just the ordinary man) are lying.

Also, lets be honest with each other. If you have a political persuasion, it would take something absolutely monumental to change your mind, left or right. So lets not throw insults at each other if you disagree with someone.

This thread by and large is one of the best on here but recently its becoming like a matchday thread.

It  is not the ones claiming that say it is an  easy life, it is the ones that have comfortable jobs, a nice family life and vote Tory. They also quote from the Tory press. They naturally want to hold on to their safe comfortable life and believe that anyone less fortunate than themselves in life are scroungers and they themselves will never find themselves in the same position. Unbeknown to them there are many in that position that once believed the same. I was one of those people.

Saw today that the actress that plays the disabled woman on Eastenders has been getting a lot of abuse. She has a bone disease but sometimes she can stand for some scenes other times it is too painful. She had abuse from people saying she is not really disabled. There has  been an increase in this sort of abuse. Is it a coincidence that there has also been an increase  in the media and negative reports regarding disabled people and did not IDS say something like the majority of disabled people were faking it?

Tell a lie often enough and it will eventually be believed.

[MooseBreath]

Its ridiculous. Any fool could see at the last election the Tories were the ONLY party that actually had an idea of what they wanted to do and how they'd go about it.

You may not like what they do but at least they had that.

Labour under Milliband were more of a joke than they are now, Clegg killed the Lib Dems and UKIP only really have immigration as a vote winner.

Just as a side note on the benefits thing, anyone who claims that they live an easy life by claiming benefits are full of shit. They'll be earning money on the side.

A while back I was made redundant. I claimed absolutely everything I could and guess what? It didnt even cover the rent. Anyone you know who say they are living off benefits or anyone that says they know somebody that is (not including the disabled, carers, single mothers etc. Just the ordinary man) are lying.

Also, lets be honest with each other. If you have a political persuasion, it would take something absolutely monumental to change your mind, left or right. So lets not throw insults at each other if you disagree with someone.

This thread by and large is one of the best on here but recently its becoming like a matchday thread.

You could have claimed housing benefit and lived rent free if you were unemployed long enough. Then all the other hand outs could have been spent on essentials like golden virginia and special brew.

[Strokes]

Masses? Not a chance kid, less than 1% of welfare is claimed fraudulently. Also, just to establish, anyone under the age of 25 or on minimum wage isn't hard-working then given the changes to tax credits are going to leave hundreds of families a lot worse off?

You cant really tell how much is being claimed fraudulently though can you?

[Thracian]

It  is not the ones claiming that say it is an  easy life, it is the ones that have comfortable jobs, a nice family life and vote Tory. They also quote from the Tory press. They naturally want to hold on to their safe comfortable life and believe that anyone less fortunate than themselves in life are scroungers and they themselves will never find themselves in the same position. Unbeknown to them there are many in that position that once believed the same. I was one of those people.

Saw today that the actress that plays the disabled woman on Eastenders has been getting a lot of abuse. She has a bone disease but sometimes she can stand for some scenes other times it is too painful. She had abuse from people saying she is not really disabled. There has  been an increase in this sort of abuse. Is it a coincidence that there has also been an increase  in the media and negative reports regarding disabled people and did not IDS say something like the majority of disabled people were faking it?

Tell a lie often enough and it will eventually be believed.

 

It  is not the ones claiming that say it is an  easy life, it is the ones that have comfortable jobs, a nice family life and vote Tory. They also quote from the Tory press. They naturally want to hold on to their safe comfortable life and believe that anyone less fortunate than themselves in life are scroungers and they themselves will never find themselves in the same position. Unbeknown to them there are many in that position that once believed the same. I was one of those people.

Saw today that the actress that plays the disabled woman on Eastenders has been getting a lot of abuse. She has a bone disease but sometimes she can stand for some scenes other times it is too painful. She had abuse from people saying she is not really disabled. There has  been an increase in this sort of abuse. Is it a coincidence that there has also been an increase  in the media and negative reports regarding disabled people and did not IDS say something like the majority of disabled people were faking it?

Tell a lie often enough and it will eventually be believed.

 

 

Where you get this stereotype of Conservatives from I don't know. You're so bitter Ken. About the time I offered to help you set up a market stall I was voting Conservative.So where does the concept of not caring for anyone less fortunate than themselves come from?

I've never been a nailed-on Conservative but some I Conservatives I know work tirelessly for various charities and I rather believe David Cameron's wife does a lot out of the limelight too.

You really need to examine the basis for your thoughts Ken. Or take off the blinkers. IDS is IDS. His opinion is his own. Not mine and not anyone else's. Whether he's lying or not is quite another matter but my own experience suggests there's at least some substance to what he says because I know for a fact that some disabled people abuse the system and seem delighted to do so. The pity to me is that if abuse didn't exist there might bemore money available to spend on those who most need it.    

[The Doctor]

You cant really tell how much is being claimed fraudulently though can you?

 

Not as such but they're HMRCs best estimates.

[Strokes]

Not as such but they're HMRCs best estimates.

I wouldn't rely on hmrc estimates, when i was late filling in my tax return they fined me a hundred pounds and estimated I owed £6500 in tax. I hadn't worked self employed that year and owed them nothing.

[MooseBreath]

Not as such but they're HMRCs best estimates.

They're based on proven cases of fraud so entirely fail to take into account fraud that goes undetected. For that reason the figures are effectively useless.

[purpleronnie]

So ignore the facts and make it up to fit your view then.

[MooseBreath]

So ignore the facts and make it up to fit your view then.

I haven't made anything up. You can't have a "fact" on how much benefit fraud is successfully committed, therefore it's pointless to try and use it in the debate at all.

[RedSoxUK]

Someone needs to google 'Marxist'.

 

Corbyn would feel right at home in a Moscow commieblock.

[bovril]

Corbyn would feel right at home in a Moscow commieblock.

 

I don't actually know what the hell that is but I'd guess he wouldn't as Russia has been very far from Communist for quite a while now.

[Bettsj2]

You could have claimed housing benefit and lived rent free if you were unemployed long enough. Then all the other hand outs could have been spent on essentials like golden virginia and special brew.

Nope. I did claim for housing benefit but because of what my wage was previously, it only paid a certain percentage of the rent which decreased as time went on. The job seekers allowance, council tax allowance, housing benefit and additional child tax credit I got amounted to 90% of the rent I was paying at the time.

When I commented that this surely couldnt be right as the welfare state I was having to rely on after being made redundant didnt even cover my rent, let alone food and bills, I was told to move in with relatives.

Now i'm not saying the state should make it easy for the unemployed, but they really shouldn't make it as difficult as it certainly was for me.

At that point, i'd been in full time employment for 12 years. Payed my taxes, never claimed a penny and at one of my lowest points when I needed the state to help me out for a few weeks, they treated me like some sort of beggar.

[RedSoxUK]

I don't actually know what the hell that is but I'd guess he wouldn't as Russia has been very far from Communist for quite a while now.

 

Okay, Moscow commieblock circa 1984.

[Alf Bentley]

Not as such but they're HMRCs best estimates.

 

TRUE

 

They're based on proven cases of fraud so entirely fail to take into account fraud that goes undetected. For that reason the figures are effectively useless.

 

NOT TRUE

 

Some might just want to exaggerate benefit fraud - or to discredit official figures so as to allow others to do so - but in case anyone's interested, here's where the figures do come from:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/371463/Background_and_methodology.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/371459/Statistical_Release.pdf

 

This is the key paragraph: "Estimates are produced by statistical analysis of data collected through continuous survey exercises, in which independent specially trained staff from the Department’s Performance Measurement team, review a randomly selected sample of cases each year".

 

So, The Doctor is right and Moose is wrong. The figures are estimates based on continuous surveys and expert statistical analysis of data - NOT on "proven cases of fraud". Of course, that means that they are not PRECISE figures, but nobody said they were. Lots of important figures are estimates based on such expert analysis. You don't think anyone really knows precisely the figure of British exports or education spending, do you? Like the election exit poll back in May, the benefit fraud percentage of 0.7% is a carefully calculated estimate. It might be a bit high or a bit low, but it certainly won't be anywhere near as high as most people think (is it about 25% of benefits that Joe Public reckons are claimed fraudulently?)

[MooseBreath]

TRUE

NOT TRUE

Some might just want to exaggerate benefit fraud - or to discredit official figures so as to allow others to do so - but in case anyone's interested, here's where the figures do come from:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/371463/Background_and_methodology.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/371459/Statistical_Release.pdf

This is the key paragraph: "Estimates are produced by statistical analysis of data collected through continuous survey exercises, in which independent specially trained staff from the Department’s Performance Measurement team, review a randomly selected sample of cases each year".

So, The Doctor is right and Moose is wrong. The figures are estimates based on continuous surveys and expert statistical analysis of data - NOT on "proven cases of fraud". Of course, that means that they are not PRECISE figures, but nobody said they were. Lots of important figures are estimates based on such expert analysis. You don't think anyone really knows precisely the figure of British exports or education spending, do you? Like the election exit poll back in May, the benefit fraud percentage of 0.7% is a carefully calculated estimate. It might be a bit high or a bit low, but it certainly won't be anywhere near as high as most people think (is it about 25% of benefits that Joe Public reckons are claimed fraudulently?)

Yes the estimate is based on a sample of data like all national figures but the crucial point is that the data itself consists of proven fraud. How could it be anything else? Nobody knows how many people are successfully committing benefit fraud.

[Alf Bentley]

I wouldn't rely on hmrc estimates, when i was late filling in my tax return they fined me a hundred pounds and estimated I owed £6500 in tax. I hadn't worked self employed that year and owed them nothing.

 

 

Presumably they had reason to believe that you had worked self-employed? I'm assuming you had previously worked self-employed and hadn't told them you'd done no work self-employed that year?

If so, in the absence of the legally required return, they were quite right to estimate your self-employed earnings - and to make the figure as high as they could reasonably justify to avoid a tax risk to the taxpayer.

 

Personally, I'd have done you for fraud, banged you up and thrown away the key! 

 

Seriously, though, I don't imagine that you'd have much sympathy for someone who was a revenue risk in other circumstances: someone, say, an unemployed bloke who got a job and "was late filling in" his signing off form, or a woman claiming tax credits whose working partner moved in with her and "was late filling in" a declaration of her changed circumstances?

 

25 years ago, through no fault of my own, I ended up working as a VAT Inspector for 9 months. One day I visited a garage that had been VAT-registered for 3 years, but the only documents or books the bloke produced were half a dozen bank statements and a plastic bag with a dozen receipts in it. As trained, I reconstructed his estimated income for 3 years based on that handful of documents and other estimated information at my disposal (purchases, lifestyle, mark-ups, whatever), making sure that all figures were as high as they reasonably could be. As he had failed to provide proper info to justify his tax declarations, it was then his responsibility to provide evidence to disprove those estimates (he did end up getting it reduced a bit, as I recall). 

[Strokes]

Presumably they had reason to believe that you had worked self-employed? I'm assuming you had previously worked self-employed and hadn't told them you'd done no work self-employed that year?

If so, in the absence of the legally required return, they were quite right to estimate your self-employed earnings - and to make the figure as high as they could reasonably justify to avoid a tax risk to the taxpayer.

Personally, I'd have done you for fraud, banged you up and thrown away the key!

Seriously, though, I don't imagine that you'd have much sympathy for someone who was a revenue risk in other circumstances: someone, say, an unemployed bloke who got a job and "was late filling in" his signing off form, or a woman claiming tax credits whose working partner moved in with her and "was late filling in" a declaration of her changed circumstances?

25 years ago, through no fault of my own, I ended up working as a VAT Inspector for 9 months. One day I visited a garage that had been VAT-registered for 3 years, but the only documents or books the bloke produced were half a dozen bank statements and a plastic bag with a dozen receipts in it. As trained, I reconstructed his estimated income for 3 years based on that handful of documents and other estimated information at my disposal (purchases, lifestyle, mark-ups, whatever), making sure that all figures were as high as they reasonably could be. As he had failed to provide proper info to justify his tax declarations, it was then his responsibility to provide evidence to disprove those estimates (he did end up getting it reduced a bit, as I recall).

Yeah i had attempted to de register but as with all things online on hmrc there was nothing to tell you, you had been successful. They had based it I guess on assumptions from my last return but it's not like I'm paying paye to a different company. My poor argument still loosely stands, they don't exactly dig deep when making estimations.

I'm not really moaning about the penalty, although I'm not sure people with negative or nil returns should be subject to financial penalties.

[Alf Bentley]

Yes the estimate is based on a sample of data like all national figures but the crucial point is that the data itself consists of proven fraud. How could it be anything else? Nobody knows how many people are successfully committing benefit fraud.

 

 

No, the data itself doesn't consist of proven fraud. It consists of random cases that undergo expert assessment for potential fraud - and they estimate that fraud exists in 0.7% of cases (plus errors by claimant or official in a slightly higher percentage).

 

Of course, you can claim - based on precisely zero evidence - that the level of fraud is actually much higher. Similarly, I could claim - based on zero evidence - that unemployment is really 35% and inflation is 10%. But I wouldn't be so arrogant as to assume, based on zero evidence, that I knew more than the expert statisticians whose job it is to compile such figures. I accept that all such figures will be a bit out - but probably not massively out, unless major incompetence or corruption is taking place.

[Strokes]

No, the data itself doesn't consist of proven fraud. It consists of random cases that undergo expert assessment for potential fraud - and they estimate that fraud exists in 0.7% of cases (plus errors by claimant or official in a slightly higher percentage).

 

Of course, you can claim - based on precisely zero evidence - that the level of fraud is actually much higher. Similarly, I could claim - based on zero evidence - that unemployment is really 35% and inflation is 10%. But I wouldn't be so arrogant as to assume, based on zero evidence, that I knew more than the expert statisticians whose job it is to compile such figures. I accept that all such figures will be a bit out - but probably not massively out, unless major incompetence or corruption is taking place.

It is by its nature, impossible to tell how much unproven fraud cases are being claimed currently. It doesn't matter how much statistics you throw in a computer, the only evidence that can be used is proven fraud cases. I'm sorry but moose is correct.

[Alf Bentley]

Yeah i had attempted to de register but as with all things online on hmrc there was nothing to tell you, you had been successful. They had based it I guess on assumptions from my last return but it's not like I'm paying paye to a different company. My poor argument still loosely stands, they don't exactly dig deep when making estimations.

 

 

Fair enough, but "digging deep when making estimates" would cost a lot more in resources used to dig deep, wasting taxpayers' money. There is a legal assumption that it is the responsibility of the registered taxpayer to make a declaration and provide supporting evidence, if required. During my brief stint in VAT, the words "tax risk" featured pretty prominently - and there's an obvious tax risk if a registered business doesn't make any declaration whatsoever. There might be good reasons for that or the taxpayer might subsequently be able to produce evidence that they didn't really owe the estimated tax levied on them....I assume that's what happened in your case, as you say you didn't really owe them anything. But the onus is on the taxpayer.

 

Likewise, the onus is on benefits claimants to make accurate declarations and to back them up as required. It's not down to the Jobcentre, HMRC or whoever to go chasing after all claimants "digging deep" to see whether or not they've started a new job or had a working partner move in with them - the onus is on the individual, not the state.

[Strokes]

Fair enough, but "digging deep when making estimates" would cost a lot more in resources used to dig deep, wasting taxpayers' money. There is a legal assumption that it is the responsibility of the registered taxpayer to make a declaration and provide supporting evidence, if required. During my brief stint in VAT, the words "tax risk" featured pretty prominently - and there's an obvious tax risk if a registered business doesn't make any declaration whatsoever. There might be good reasons for that or the taxpayer might subsequently be able to produce evidence that they didn't really owe the estimated tax levied on them....I assume that's what happened in your case, as you say you didn't really owe them anything. But the onus is on the taxpayer.

 

Likewise, the onus is on benefits claimants to make accurate declarations and to back them up as required. It's not down to the Jobcentre, HMRC or whoever to go chasing after all claimants "digging deep" to see whether or not they've started a new job or had a working partner move in with them - the onus is on the individual, not the state.

So we agree then?

[Alf Bentley]

It is by its nature, impossible to tell how much unproven fraud cases are being claimed currently. It doesn't matter how much statistics you throw in a computer, the only evidence that can be used is proven fraud cases. I'm sorry but moose is correct.

 

 

If you follow that argument, you'd have to say that almost all statistics are worthless and there's no point in keeping them, as most statistics involve some degree of estimation.

 

What you say about unproven fraud would also apply in almost every other field: people working undeclared or illegally, services provided cash-in-hand, goods smuggled in/out of the country, goods sold cheap for cash etc. etc.

 

On that basis, all figures for employment/unemployment, inflation, imports/exports and growth are as worthless as the figures for benefit fraud. Until proven otherwise, I'd prefer to think that most important statistics are reasonably accurate - certainly not completely accurate, but fairly close approximations. They are compiled by expert statisticians - and are usually scrutinised by informed people, so important inaccuracies will be discovered sooner or later.

[Alf Bentley]

So we agree then?

 

I agree with what I wrote, so I'm glad if you agree with it, too! 

[Strokes]

If you follow that argument, you'd have to say that almost all statistics are worthless and there's no point in keeping them, as most statistics involve some degree of estimation.

 

What you say about unproven fraud would also apply in almost every other field: people working undeclared or illegally, services provided cash-in-hand, goods smuggled in/out of the country, goods sold cheap for cash etc. etc.

 

On that basis, all figures for employment/unemployment, inflation, imports/exports and growth are as worthless as the figures for benefit fraud. Until proven otherwise, I'd prefer to think that most important statistics are reasonably accurate - certainly not completely accurate, but fairly close approximations. They are compiled by expert statisticians - and are usually scrutinised by informed people, so important inaccuracies will be discovered sooner or later.

Some are more pie in the sky than others, this one has no ground whatsoever. Unemployment/employment has much a much stronger grounding as the evidence used to build the statistics is much more reliable. You are right though, no estimate can be taken as gospel.

I agree with what I wrote, so I'm glad if you agree with it, too! 

You were arguing my point very well, we make a good team