Welfare &c.

[vinteuil]

I thought it was flocks for sheep.
Herds makes me think of bison. Or perhaps bears: -


The common cormorant or shag
Lays eggs inside a paper bag:
The reason you will see no doubt -
It is to keep the lightning out:
But what these unobservant birds
Have not noticed is that herds
Of bears may come with buns,
And steal the bags to hold the crumbs.

[MrGongGong]

I thought it was flocks for sheep.
Herds makes me think of bison. Or perhaps bears: -


The common cormorant or shag
Lays eggs inside a paper bag
The reason you will see no doubt
It is to keep the lightning out:
But what these unobservant birds
Have not noticed is that herds
Of bears may come with buns
And steal the bags to hold the crumbs.

Makes me think of Blur (the band ! ) not always a good place to go

[amateur51]

I thought it was flocks for sheep.
Herds makes me think of bison. Or perhaps bears: -


The common cormorant or shag
Lays eggs inside a paper bag:
The reason you will see no doubt -
It is to keep the lightning out:
But what these unobservant birds
Have not noticed is that herds
Of bears may come with buns,
And steal the bags to hold the crumbs.

Herr Issyvoo would be pleased, vints

[Richard Tarleton]

I thought it was flocks for sheep.
Herds makes me think of bison. Or perhaps bears:

Or wildebeest

[JFLL]

Ah, yes indeed - I'd forgotten to mention that! Thanks for posting these links.

In addition to the very small-scale fraud and cheating element and administrative error factor, there is also the matter of those entitled to claim state benefits who fail or omit to do so or do not claim as much as they're entitled to claim. As a matter of fact, despite all the noise about benefit fraudsters / cheats and tax evaders, it is, I believe, a generally recognised fact that if all these people immediately ceased to break the benefit and tax laws in these ways but at the same time everyone entitled to claim state benefits were to do so in full and everyone entitled to money back from the taxman managed to obtain it, HMRC/DWP's finances would be in a vastly more parlous state than they are now.

I do applaud the pragmatism of this. Those who obey the law and don’t claim money for which they are entitled are thereby saving the state money, and so it is perfectly all right that the money saved should be given to those, thankfully fewer in number, who are breaking the law by claiming it. This situation is actually good for the nation’s finances, and we should all be jolly well grateful that that is the situation, whatever the morality of the matter. Ah yes indeed, let’s not be swayed by the noise about fraudsters and tax evaders, let’s just look at the economics of the thing.

[ahinton]

I do applaud the pragmatism of this. Those who obey the law and don’t claim money for which they are entitled are thereby saving the state money, and so it is perfectly all right that the money saved should be given to those, thankfully fewer in number, who are breaking the law by claiming it. This situation is actually good for the nation’s finances, and we should all be jolly well grateful that that is the situation, whatever the morality of the matter. Ah yes indeed, let’s not be swayed by the noise about fraudsters and tax evaders, let’s just look at the economics of the thing.

Did I suggest anything of the kind? Did I write anything in defence of benefit fraudsters and cheats or tax evaders? No, of course not. I think that we can all pretty much agree about these people's activities which are illegal and immoral. My point was purely to challenge the implication that a substantial proportion of benefit claimants are cheats and that tax evasion is the norm whereas honest returning and paying of tax is the exception, neither of which is the case. The poster concerned referred principally to benefit cheats; if the amount of state benefits last to fraudulent claimants is a very small proportion of benefit payments as a whole, if follows that most benefit claimants are legally and morally entitled to claim what they do. If that were duly recognised, as it should be, all the talk of "scroungers" and the like would be put into proper perspective. So - indeed, let's not be swayed by the "noise about fraudsters and tax evaders"; let's just try to reduce benefit fraud and tax evasion and punish those convicted of it.

It is also important to recognise that, for a variety of reasons, not everyone legally and morally entitled to claim state benefits does so or claims the full entitlement and, likewise, there are people who pay too much tax; many of these fail to claim and overpay tax without realising it. So - let's be as swayed as we need to be about the effect of this, again for the purpose of getting such matters into a more realistic perspective.

[french frank]

Request for a split thread - please

Would it be possible to calve or carve off all the replies from number 11 right down to the end (that is to say, everything from page 2 onwards) to a separate thread? I don't know or understand what the subject being discussed in that long later section is, but it has nothing whatever to do with the Golden Rule does it.

I think it would be more suitable/easier if the first 10 were moved to Ideas & Theory, which includes ethical discussion. I will move them there under the title Golden Rule. I will change the later thread to Welfare.

[MrGongGong]

I think it would be more suitable/easier if the first 10 were moved to Ideas & Theory, which includes ethical discussion. I will move them there under the title Golden Rule. I will change the later thread to Welfare.

OK Boss

There are, obviously, NO ethics involved in some attitudes to welfare

The people I have met who are most outraged by benefit fraud are those with severe disabilities and their parents, the conflation affects them more than anyone else.

[JFLL]

Did I suggest anything of the kind?

Yes, you ‘suggested’ it, by implication. Arguments are judged not only by what they say, but by what they imply. But it also helps if ideas are expressed clearly and not clothed in pompous and labyrinthine prose.

Did I write anything in defence of benefit fraudsters and cheats or tax evaders?

An Aunt Sally. No, you didn’t, and I didn’t say you did. I simply drew out the logic of your argument.

I think that we can all pretty much agree about these people's activities which are illegal and immoral.

But if other people draw attention to the fact it is ‘noise’ which we must not be ‘swayed by’?

[Resurrection Man]

..... My point was purely to challenge the implication that a substantial proportion of benefit claimants are cheats and that tax evasion is the norm whereas honest returning and paying of tax is the exception, neither of which is the case. .....

You really take the biscuit. Im not sure quite what goes on in your mind. Tell me where I implied "that a substantial proportion of benefit claimants are cheats and that tax evasion is the norm" if it is my post that you are referring to. Also I still await the link to support your claim. Otherwise, although you obfuscate the issue in pompous and long-winded prose, the upshot of your post is simply - Hot Air.

[ahinton]

Yes, you ‘suggested’ it, by implication. Arguments are judged not only by what they say, but by what they imply. But it also helps if ideas are expressed clearly and not clothed in pompous and labyrinthine prose.

OK. Benefit cheats deserve to be punished appropriately and their actions help to deprive those who need state benefits of their dues. Same goes for tax evaders. Got that? The fact, however, that these are in the minority in terms both of numbers of culprits and figures lost to the state speaks for itself. If any of that's "pompous and labyrinthine", there's no point in discussing it with you or in your contributing your thoughts to such a debate.

An Aunt Sally. No, you didn’t, and I didn’t say you did. I simply drew out the logic of your argument.

That is precisely what you omitted and/or failed to do, wilfully or inadvertently.

But if other people draw attention to the fact it is ‘noise’ which we must not be ‘swayed by’?

Be swayed - if you will - by official figures, for all that they're not accurate to the last penny; I'm not asking that anyone should be swayed by what I say but by what they can source for themselves.

[ahinton]

You really take the biscuit. Im not sure quite what goes on in your mind. Tell me where I implied "that a substantial proportion of benefit claimants are cheats and that tax evasion is the norm" if it is my post that you are referring to.

It wasn't - and I don't think that you really need me to spell out for you whose it was. I'm as sure that you don't know what goes on in my mind as I am that you'd studiously and wilfully ignore official figures, their flaws notwithstanding, if to do so might risk undermining the thoughts of others on the matter that you appear willing to endorse or at the very least not criticise.

although you obfuscate the issue in pompous and long-winded prose, the upshot of your post is simply - Hot Air.

I've put matters in few words of few syllables each for the benefit of anyone uncertain of any parts of my earlier posts on this; the air concerned is thus fresh but not hot.

[MrGongGong]

You really take the biscuit.

Isn't that the method used by Dave to choose who does what in the cabinet ?
like a kind of Eton sorting hat thing ...........

[teamsaint]

Isn't that the method used by Dave to choose who does what in the cabinet ?
like a kind of Eton sorting hat thing ...........

ah, so there IS method in what they do.....

[mangerton]

ah, so there IS method in what they do.....

I'm not sure about method, but there certainly seems to be madness.