Creating the capacity to pursue claims that impose poverty when the object of this benefit was to relieve it is indicative of a mindset that has lost touch with reality.
Of course, if there is fraud, chase it, but I very much doubt that many of these claims involve fraud. They refer to simple human error. In that case, there should be forgiveness in most cases, coupled (perhaps) with repayment, at most, of a part of the sum overpaid, representing a fair tax rate (ten per cent?) on the excess earnings not declared.
But so long as this persecution continues, we are living in a country governed by a political party that shows it just does not care.
Folk who cheat the system by claiming money direct are to be let off with a mild slap on the wrist.
The same bloke insists that those who obey the law, wholly and entirely – he calls it “agressive tax avoidance” – must be pursued to the ends of the Earth for more money.
I wonder if you can see reality from where he is?
” representing a fair tax rate (ten per cent?) ”
At last something Spud has written I can agree with. A fair tax rate is indeed 10%.
“we are living in a country governed by a political party that shows it just does not care.”
The thinking here, presumably, being that at least the others have the decency to pretend they do.
My favourite post was one I missed yesterday:
‘Freedom from fear’
provide. And I don’t think it’s a priority for any politician, from the major parties at least, in the UK at present. And that, to me, is incredibly worrying.
Freedom from fear was one of the four fundamental freedoms that US President Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Second World War leader of the USA, outlined in a speech in 1941, not that long before the US joined the Second World War. He said there were four fundamental freedoms. The freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear. Fear, to me, is, however, the most important of all of those because if you don’t have freedom from fear, well, that’s probably because you don’t have one of the others. So, it’s the overarching need that we as humans have, to live free from fear.
I’m guessing that Jewish people in London unable to go out because of fear of being accosted by the Hamas Sympathisers Murphy supports are not entitled to ‘Freedom from Fear’
Those who are menaced by gangs of illegals brought over here by criminal gangs and wondering why they’re deprioritised on a housing list don’t get to live ‘free from fear’ either….
I worry that the rampant inflation and soaring taxes that Murphy has delivered and encouraged will leave my children on the streets – do I get to live ‘free from that fear’? I think we know the answer.
What a piece of garbage he is
“…pursue claims that impose poverty when the object of this benefit was to relieve it…”
Isn’t the object of the £151/week (just over 13 hrs a week on NMW, presuming no deductions which don’t accrue to that limit) to stop people claiming carer’s allowance if they’re spending too much time working and not enough… caring (35 hrs caring minimum to be eligible) ?
Or is this cakeism he’s trying to go for? “Work all the hours you want, don’t bother doing much care, but still get the carer’s allowance who the more tax-productive members of society will be paying for” sounds a bit more than simple “human error” and more “deliberately fleecing the system.”
Slightly O-T This came up on my Iphone and perhaps prompted the question:
https://www.gbnews.com/news/illegal-school-manchester-teaching-children-conspiracy-theories
Why there’s such outrage at an ‘illegal school’ teaching what the authorities and the craven mainstream media claim are ‘conspiracy theories’ (When from what I have read the comments regarding Gates and Schwab are nearly completely accurate) when the likes of Murphy and sundry academics are allowed to express absurdities like MMT, The Magic Money Tree, White privilege and other nonsense with complete
impunity and paid by the taxpayer to do so!!
I wonder if you can see reality from where he is?
He’s that far up his own arse he can probably see his back teeth
The same bloke insists that those who obey the law, wholly and entirely – he calls it “aggressive tax avoidance” – must be pursued to the ends of the Earth for more money.
It’s entirely consistent with his view of taxation, Timmy.
For Murphy it always boils down to tax, penalize and demonize those he dislikes (and/or envies), and ignore the law for those he likes (or more accurately, those he chooses to patronize in order to convey his moral superiority).
There is a logic to his foolishness.
“Or is this cakeism he’s trying to go for? “Work all the hours you want, don’t bother doing much care, but still get the carer’s allowance who the more tax-productive members of society will be paying for” sounds a bit more than simple “human error” and more “deliberately fleecing the system.””
I see carer’s allowance as a payment for services rendered, not a benefit to the carer. It shouldn’t stop someone working as well. Its going to cost the State a hell of a lot more that £350/month if Granny has to go into a State funded care home because she can no longer live at home, so chucking a small proportion of that at the relatives to keep looking after her in her own home seems a decent investment to me. All that needs to be done is a thorough assessment of Granny’s needs at the beginning. If she qualifies for the payment why worry too much about what the person getting it does as well? If they are working as well (which HMRC will know all about) just adjust their tax code to take the £350 extra income per month into account. FFS we have the technology to make all this work seamlessly, WTF can’t it just be sorted without having to treat people like criminals when they are actually doing good for both the individual and society at large?
“we are living in a country governed by a political party that shows it just does not care.”
Yes, we know. Zero seats! Zero seats!
M25: That’s a net zero I can agree with.
The article says that there are 5m unpaid carers, of which 1m claim carers allowance. That’s good that the vast majority are following the rules in Great Britain & NI and not claiming if not entitled.
But suppose you just said to them all, knock yourselves out, here’s that £81.90 a week, so extra bill to the taxpayer of £16bn, closing in on 3 days GDP.
Or you just said to them all, knock yourselves out, here’s that £81.90 a week , work as much as you like but we’re going to check that 35 hours a week of care does actually take place.
Compared to now, the two most obvious alternatives that Ritchie is asking for are a massive cut in compensation for the rest of us, or a massive increase in bureaucracy.
I’m astonished anyone can decipher what the carbohydrate is saying – his prose is so poor and incompetently expressive, it’s almost impossible to extract any meaning from it.
But whatever he’s wittering on about, I’m sure it’s purely evil and wrong.
“But suppose you just said to them all, knock yourselves out, here’s that £81.90 a week, so extra bill to the taxpayer of £16bn, closing in on 3 days GDP.”
I bet I could find savings of £16bn out of the £1.25tn the UK government spends annually in less than a day. And anyway it wouldn’t be £16bn anyway, some of it would end up back with HMRC in tax.
A UBI for carers it is then
“A UBI for carers it is then”
Who is going to look after Granny best? Her own children? Random people employed by the State to do it (most likely immigrants who don’t give a flying f*ck about some old white woman) or more of the same employed by a private nursing home which is getting less money than it needs from the State to really provide decent care? I know which one I’d want.
Welfare is negative tax, surely. So these are tax evaders he is protecting!